- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25738 MFA No. 6067 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6067 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. G. NAWAZ ALI KHAN @ NAWAZ S/O JAVID ALI KHAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT. DOOR NO.1146/A 3RD CROSS, 5th MAIN ROAD OPPOSITE TO DECCAN ENGLISH SCHOOL, SRIRAMA PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 021. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.O.SRIKANTHA REDDY, S/O. O. VENKATA REDDY, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT HOUSE NO.1-5-547 BAJAJI COLONY, THIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDRA PRADESH - 517 501. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER H.D.F.C ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., 1ST FLOOR, JENEVA HOUSE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25738 MFA No. 6067 of 2014 BANGALORE- 560 001. 3. VICE CHAIRMAN-CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR (V.C & M.D ) ANDRA PRADESH STATE ROAD, TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MUSHEERA BAD, HYDERABAD CITY, ANDRA PRADESH - 03. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. D VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3, VIDE ORDER DATED 03.06.2015, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.8.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3776/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 7TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-3, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 17.08.2013 passed by the VII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, MACT-3, Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal') in MVC.No.3776/2010. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25738 MFA No. 6067 of 2014 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief case of both the parties before the Tribunal are as under: On 17.04.2010, at about 11.20 a.m., the petitioner was driving the B.T.Bus bearing registration No.KA-04/D-4648 on NH-4 road and when the bus reached near Kajikallahalli Gate, Narasapur bye -pass, Kolar, driver of a APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-03/W-8140 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and hit B.T Bus. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar, thereafter to Sparsh hospital at Bengaluru. He spent more than Rs.2,45,000/- towards medical expenses. His left leg was amputed and right leg was fractured. He was driver in BT bus earning Rs.9,000/- per month and Rs.50/- per day as batta. Due to injuries sustained in the accident he has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, prayed to award compensation of Rs.25 lakhs. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner, respondent No.2 is the insurer and respondent No.3 is the hirer of the APSRTC bus. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25738 MFA No. 6067 of 2014 Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed written statement. Both the respondents denied the contentions of the claim petition. Respondent No.3 contended that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and it is liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No.2 denied its liability to pay the compensation. 5. The Tribunal based on the rival contentions of the parties framed necessary issues. 6. The claimant to prove his case examined four witnesses as PW-1 to PW4 and marked Exs.P1 to P32. The respondents have not led any evidence. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence on record held that accident occured due to rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to APSRTC (for short ‘offending vehicle’). The Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant as Rs.9,000/- per month, his age as 35 years, applied multiplier as ‘15’, assessed the disability at 80% to the whole body and awarded compensation of Rs.15,40,850/-. The claimant found the said amount as inadequate, filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25738 MFA No. 6067 of 2014 7. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken disability to an extent of 100%. The Tribunal has not added future prospects towards the income of the claimant since he has been suffering from permanent disability to an extent of 100%. The amount of compensation awarded is also on lower side. Therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contended that the Tribunal has taken disability at 80% as against 50% mentioned in the schedule II of the Workmen Compensation Act. Amount of compensation on other heads are also on higher side. He continued his job. Therefore, there was no loss of income. However, the insurer has not challenged the said award. Therefore, enhancement of compensation is not required. 10. Learned counsel for appellant has relied on the following judgment: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25738 MFA No. 6067 of 2014 • Sarnam Singh v. shriram Genera Insurance Co., Ltd1 • Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co., Ltd. and Ors2 • Mohd. Saber alias Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P.State Road Transport Corporation3 • Sanjay Rajpoot v. Ram Singh and Others4 11. The fact of the accident and injuries sustained are not in dispute. The Tribunal after assessment of the evidence on record held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the same. 12. The main contention of the appellant was regarding the disability assessed by the Tribunal. Admittedly, left lower limb below knee joint was amputed . PW-2 in his evidence has stated that in the right leg there was disability of 40% and to the whole body disability is 35%. He further stated that functional disability to a driver will be 100%. PW-3 is the orthopeadic surgeon of Sparsh hospital, who treated the claimant, stated about the fractures as well as treatment given to him. PW-4 is the employer of the claimant, according to 1 AIR 2023 SCC 3601 2 AIR 2019 SCC 3128 3 AIR 2023 SCC 186 4 AIR 2025 SCC 1250 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25738 MFA No. 6067 of 2014 him, claimant was drawing salary of Rs.9,000/- per month. The claimant has produced the medical record at Exs.P6 to Ex.P19, Ex.P22 to Ex.P28. On the basis of the said evidence, claimant contended that he was suffering from permanent disability to an extent of 100%. According to the respondent, the Company would provide the claimant with an alternative job; therefore, there would not be a 100% loss of income. As per Schedule I part (2), the amputation of lower limb is 50%. The said table is pertaining to Workmen Compensation Act, hence, it can be looked into. 13. The appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarnam Singh referred supra, wherein for amputation of leg, the disability was taken at 100%. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parminder Singh referred supra, the functional disability is taken as 100% in case of amputation of leg of driver of the vehicle. The judgment reported in the case of Mohd. Saber alias Shabir Hussain referred supra, in this case also amputation of the leg below the hip, permanent disability was taken 70% and in that case, the victim was a driver. As - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25738 MFA No. 6067 of 2014 already stated above, the medical evidence reveals that his left leg below knee joint was amputed and both the bones of right leg was fractured. There was restriction in the movement of right leg and the doctor assessed the disability to the right leg as 40%. 14. Looking at the above said injuries, considering the occupation and age, the claimant has not only lost his left lower limb below knee joint but also suffered severe fracture of both the bones of the right leg. Under those circumstances, it may not be possible for him to drive a heavy transport vehicle, which he was doing prior to the accident. Normally, the loss of a lower limb alone does not render a person totally disabled. If an injured is bedridden, or unable to do any kind of work in that event it can be considered as loss of 100% income. In this case, the claimant is aged 35 years old, left leg was amputed and has 40% disability to right leg. He is driver by occupation and PW-2 states that claimant cannot continue his occupation as driver. Now he has to go for a new job. Considering these facts and circumstances also relying on the judgment rendered - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25738 MFA No. 6067 of 2014 by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarnam Singh referred supra disability of the claimant is taken as 100%. 15. When the disability crosses 50% to 60%, it also affects the claimant’s future prospects, and such prospects must be added to the income of the claimant. In this case, the claimant proved that he was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month, which was accepted by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal did not add future prospects, even though it assessed the disability as 80% to the whole body, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd v.Pranay Sethi and Ors5 and Sarla Verma and DTC6, future prospects of 40% has to be added to his income and on that basis, loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability has to be assessed. 16. The compensation awarded under the other heads is also on the lower side, which needs to be recalculated. 17. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards the cost of an artificial limb. The claimant did not provide evidence in this regard; however, a nominal amount 5 (2017) 16 SCC 680 6 AIR 2009 SC 3104 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25738 MFA No. 6067 of 2014 should be awarded under this head. Claimant is suffering from permanent disability of 100%. Hence he is not entitled to separate compensation under the head 'loss of amenities,' as it falls within the scope of compensation for permanent disability. 18. As per Ex.P10, the date of birth of the claimant is 01.06.1973, therefore, as on the date of the accident, he was aged about 36 years 10 months. Therefore, multiplier applicable to the case in hand is '15'. From the above figures, following amount of compensation is awarded towards loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability. (Rs.9,000/- + 40% x 15 x 12 x 100%= 22,68,000/-.) 19. Following amount of compensation is recalculated: Sl.No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) 1. Loss of dependency due to permanent disability 22,68,000 Medical bills 84,850 Attendant charges, special diet and conveyance allowances 50,000 Pain and suffering 1,50,000 Loss of artificial limb 1,00,000 Total Rs.26,52,850/- Awarded by the Tribunal 15,40,850/- Amount enhanced 11,12,000/- - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25738 MFA No. 6067 of 2014 20. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the said amount of compensation. 21. The claimant has prayed to award compensation of Rs.25 lakhs, it will not come in the way to award a just and reasonable amount of compensation and on that count the compensation cannot be restricted to Rs.25 lakhs. 22. The claimant is also entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 23. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative and pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 17.08.2013 passed by the VII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, MACT-3, Bengaluru in MVC.No.3776/2010 is modified. iii. The claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation of Rs.11,12,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization and claimant is not entitled to interest for the delayed period of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25738 MFA No. 6067 of 2014 274 days and also on Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards future medical expenses. iv. Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this award. v. The deposit and release of the amount is as ordered by the Tribunal. Send back the trial court records along with the copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38