- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50023-DB MFA No. 2027 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2027 OF 2024 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. MOULA, S/O. AMEER JAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/A NO.11082-1, CBP ROAD, NEAR MEENA MASJID, RAJANAGAR, KOLAR, KARNATAKA - 563 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, MOTOR CLAIMS HUB, NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. VENKATACHALAM .K, S/O S. KANDASAMY, Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50023-DB MFA No. 2027 of 2024 NO.20, 1ST MAIN ROAD, KPN EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVASA K N., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R5 IS SERVED,V/O DATED 23.09.2025 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.10.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO. 6427/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIII ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES (SCCH-19), MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS MISCELLAENOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50023-DB MFA No. 2027 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This appeal is by the claimant for enhancement of compensation arising out of judgment and award dated 10.10.2023 in MVC.No.6427/2022 passed by XV Additional Small Causes Judge And XXIII ACMM, Court Of Small Causes (SCCH-19), Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru ('Tribunal' for short). 2. The date of accident, injury suffered and liability to pay the compensation are not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to quantum of compensation. 3. Heard Sri. Gurudev Prasad K.T, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant and Sri.Srinivasa K.N, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/insurer. Vide order dated 23.09.2025, notice of this appeal to respondent No.2 is dispensed with. 4. Sri. Gurudev Prasad K.T, taking us through the judgment and award, sought enhancement of compensation under three heads; that is 'loss of income during period of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50023-DB MFA No. 2027 of 2024 treatment', 'loss of future income due to disability' and 'loss of amenities'. 5. Sri. Gurudev Prasad K.T, firstly contends that the claimant was working as a driver of the auto which involved in the accident, which is even clear from the police records. The accident occurred on 29.09.2022, the Tribunal in the presence of documentary evidence that the claimant was a driver, had considered the notional income at Rs.16,000/-. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority ['KSLSA' for short]. The income fixed for unskilled labour for the year 2022 is at Rs.15,500/- per month. In the case on hand, the claimant was working as a driver and a skilled labourer, the Tribunal has missed this aspect of the matter and taken income only at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per month, it should have been at least Rs.30,000/- per month as claimed by the claimant before the Tribunal. 6. Secondly, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head 'loss of income due to disability'. The injuries suffered resulted in amputation of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50023-DB MFA No. 2027 of 2024 left leg below knee with stump measuring 16 cms and there is restricted right knee and ankle movements with wasting of thigh muscles. Further, there is a fracture of clavicle with implant in situ. The doctor who has been examined as PW2 has spoken regarding disability at 60% to the right lower limb, 45% to the left arm and 70% due to amputation with respect to left leg and to the whole body at 50%. The Tribunal has taken the disability at 40%. The amputation is a scheduled injury and as per the schedule stated in the Employees' Compensation Act, the amputation of leg below knee exceeding 12% is 50%. So far as other limbs are concerned, the doctor has stated 60% towards the right lower limb and 45% towards the left arm. In these circumstances, the disability to whole body is nearly 85% to 90%, which would amounts to 100% loss of earning capacity. 7. The Tribunal has not considered to award any compensation under 'loss of income during laid up period'. It is not in dispute that the left leg is amputated and there is disability to the extent of 60% to the right lower limb and 45% to the left arm. In these circumstances, the appellant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50023-DB MFA No. 2027 of 2024 ought to have taken rest at least for a period of 6 to 8 months. The Tribunal has missed this aspect of the matter and not awarded proper compensation, the same requires re-consideration. 8. Thirdly, the Tribunal has awarded, 'loss of amenities to life' at Rs.50,000/-. A person aged 28 years has lost one limb and suffered disability with respect to other limbs, has lost all his comforts in life and now confined to a wheel chair or bed, this would frustrate his entire future life. Though the compensation cannot bring back the earlier body structure but to some extent, a just compensation would give some solace. On these grounds he sought to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation. 9. Sri.Srinivasa K.N, with all vehemence submits that the Tribunal in the absence of any proof of income considering the fact that the applicant was a driver as on the date of accident has taken income at Rs.16,000/- more than the income fixed under the chart for disposal of cases before the Lok Adalat. A sum of Rs.2,00,000/- has been awarded towards 'pain and suffering' which covers both 'loss of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50023-DB MFA No. 2027 of 2024 income during laid up period' as well as 'loss of amenities', despite that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards 'loss of amenities'. 10. In these circumstances, he submits that, the claimant has not made out any case for enhancement of compensation. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court and accordingly sought to dismiss the appeal. 11. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the entire appeal paper. 12. The only point for our consideration emerges is: "Whether the claimant has made out any case for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal?" 13. The point for consideration is answered 'partly in affirmative' for the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50023-DB MFA No. 2027 of 2024 REASONS 14. It is not in dispute that the claimant has suffered grievous injuries resulting in amputation of left leg below knee with stump exceeding 12 cms, in the case on hand, it is 16 cms. As per the evidence of the doctor, he has suffered disability to the right lower limb at 60% and 45% to the left arm, besides the disability towards amputation of left leg. 15. We find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the disability suffered must be more than 50% but not certainly 85% to 90%. Considering the disability suffered and chances of the appellant may take another avocation, the disability is considered at 60% to the whole body. Further he requires future medical expenses towards artificial limb at least 3 times at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- for each. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances involved in this case and in view of settled position of law, considering the age of the applicant being 28 years on the date of accident, 40% is required to be added towards the future prospectus to the existing income and the appropriate multiplier would be '17'. Now the only question which - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50023-DB MFA No. 2027 of 2024 remains is regarding the monthly income. It is no doubt as per the police record, the claimant was driver of offending auto rickshaw as on the date of accident. 17. The insurer has not led any contra evidence to dispute the fact that the claimant was not a driver. That apart the insurer is not in appeal calling in question, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, whereas the Tribunal has considered the income at Rs.16,000/- per month. 18. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 29.09.2022 for driver, income at Rs.16,000/- per month in our opinion is meager. 19. Considering the fact that he was driver of auto rickshaw, a skilled person, the Tribunal must have considered the income atleast by increasing Rs.2,000/- to the income fixed under the chart stated supra, that is to an extent of Rs.17,500/- as a bare minimum. Given the factual background, the income at Rs.17,500/- would meet ends of justice in the absence of any proof of income. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50023-DB MFA No. 2027 of 2024 20. Having considered the income at a higher rate, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'loss of future earning capacity/disability' requires to be revisited. 21. As rightly contented by Sri. Gurudev Prasad K.T, the Tribunal in the teeth of documentary evidence, has not considered the case of the claimant to award any compensation under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'. Considering the injuries suffered and the operation the claimant underwent resulting in amputation, the claimant atleast must have been out of work for a period of 6 months. Taking income as Rs.17,500/- is required to be compensated for the period stated supra. 22. Admittedly, the appellant was 28 years as on the date of accident. A young man has lost one limb and has to suffer his entire life with disability with other limbs. No doubt any compensation awarded would not bring back the physical frame, but to some extent it would give some sort of solace. The person injured must be compensated within the expression 'just compensation'. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50023-DB MFA No. 2027 of 2024 23. Having considered the fact that the claimant has already been awarded Rs,2,00,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering', if another sum of Rs.50,000/- is added towards 'loss of amenities' would meet the ends of justice. 24. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is required to be re-visited and re-determined. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for the respondent-determined compensation under the following heads: Sl.No. Heads Amount in Rs. 1. Pain and Suffering 2,00,000 2. Medical Expenses 13,538 3. Transportation, Nourishment, Food, conveyance and attendant charges 30,000 4. Towards loss of income on account of permanent disability (Rs.17,500+40%x12x17x60%) 29,98,800 5. Towards future medical expenses 1,00,000 6. Towards loss of amenities of life 1,00,000 7. Towards loss of income during laid up period (Rs.17,500x6) 1,05,000 8. Future medical expenses (Artificial limb - Rs.1,50,000 x 3) 4,50,000 TOTAL 39,97,338 Rounded off 39,97,500 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50023-DB MFA No. 2027 of 2024 25. In all, the appellant/claimant is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.39,97,500/- as against Rs.16,99,138/- awarded by the Tribunal. The re-determined compensation shall carry interest at 6% p.a., instead of 8% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal. 26. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is Allowed-in-Part; ii) The judgment and award dated 10.10.2023 in MVC.No.6427/2022 passed by XV Additional Small Causes Judge And XXIII ACMM, Court Of Small Causes (SCCH-19), Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, is hereby modified and re- determined. iii) The amount of compensation is re-determined at Rs.39,97,500/- and enhanced compensation of Rs.22,98,362/- (Rs.39,97,500 - 16,99,138) which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50023-DB MFA No. 2027 of 2024 iv) The respondent No.2/insurer shall deposit the entire amount compensation along with the accrued interest before the concerned Tribunal within 6 weeks from the rate of receipt of copy of this order. v) Upon Deposit 50% amount shall be released in favor of appellant/claimant on proper identification and balance 50% shall be invested in any interest yielding FDR with any Nationalized Bank for a period of 5 years. The Bank shall not permit any loan on the FDR without an order from the concerned Tribunal/Court. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 35 ct-vn