- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13915 MFA No. 3684 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3684 OF 2024 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MR. M. KRISHNA S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NO.79, 1ST ‘B’ MAIN ROAD, KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT, LAGGERE, BENGALURU - 58, NOW RESIDING AT NO.21, HOSAPALYA, AGARA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 60. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.T. MADHU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. SHASHIKUMAR R. S/O RAJENDRA, NO.670, ANJANAPURA, NEAR MARIKAMBA TEMPLE, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13915 MFA No. 3684 of 2024 ANJANAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 062. (REPTD BY HIS COUNSEL) [OWNER OF LORRY NO.KA-51-C-3219] 2. MR. SAMARTH H.S. B.M. ROAD, HUNSUR TOWN, KANAGAL, MYSORE – 571 105. [EXPARTE] [POLICY HOLDER OF LORRY NO.KA-51-C-3219] 3. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., LEGAL OFFICE, NO.141, 4TH FLOOR, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, “SRI. SHANTHI TOWERS” 3RD MAIN ROAD, KASTURINAGAR, BANGALORE - 43 [REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER] …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; V/O DATED 04.09.2025, NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.03.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2285/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-15, BENGALURU SCCH-15. PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13915 MFA No. 3684 of 2024 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and award dated 01.03.2024 passed in M.V.C. No.2285 of 2022 by the XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge, ACMM, Court of Small Causes & Member, MACT-15 at Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’) wherein the claimant has filed the claim petition claiming enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranking and status before the Tribunal. 3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and respondents and perused the materials on record. 4. Brief facts of the case are as under: The Appellant/ Petitioner/ Injured - claimant met with an accident on 05.04.2022 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13915 MFA No. 3684 of 2024 entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.6,60,580/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of petition till realisation. The 1st and 2nd respondents are liable to pay the compensation, however 3rd respondent/ Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of order and the same can be recovered from 1st and 2nd respondents. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company preferred an appeal and mainly contended that as per the complaint, the appellant was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-05-JM-1975 at that time, the rider of Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-51-C-3219 came with rash and negligent manner in the same direction and dashed against petitioner’s motor cycle and thereby caused the accident. Due to said accident the appellant sustained multiple grevious injuries. He sustained multiple injuries which are grievous in nature and was hospitalised for a period of 14 days as an inpatient for four different spells and spent huge medical expenses. The appellant was examined by the doctor and he - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13915 MFA No. 3684 of 2024 assessed the physical disability of 92% to right upper limb and 30.6% to the whole body. But the Tribunal has granted meagre amount under other heads and thus requested for enhancement of the compensation. 6. Though it is stated that the appellant was earning Rs.75,000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in 2022, his notional income is to be taken as Rs.15,500/- per month, as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. 7. Learned counsel for respondents stated that, it is the case of fracture and injury is caused to the upper limb and therefore 1/4th to be taken for assessing the disability. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a citation reported in MFA No.103807 of 2016 (MVI) C/w MFA No.103835 of 2016 dated 27.05.2022 in which it was stated that even in case of injury without amputation resulting in whole body disability to the extent of 20% which reduces the earning capacity. As such, he is entitled for future prospectus. It is also stated that loss of sensation to the left upper limb and it - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13915 MFA No. 3684 of 2024 seems that there was malunion. In the said case, he was aged 40 years and thus the future prospectus was granted. On the same proposition, he also relied upon M.F.A. No.7838 of 2022 (MVI) dated 20.01.2025, the medical evidence of PW2, Orthopaedic surgeon reads as follows: 1) Vehicle was run over on his left arm, he sustained crush injury of left arm and he was taken to local hospital. 2) The crush injury of left arm open Grade III B Supracondylar fracture left humerus with severe degloveing of left upper limb skin. 3) He underwent emergency would debridement and stabilization with external fixation on 06.04.2022 followed by definitive fixation with open reduction and internal fixation of left humerus with bicolumnar plating on 06.04.2022 followed by flap surgery by plastic surgeon (Latissimus Dorsi Flap) left side on 06.04.2022. 4) In course of fracture healing, it was noted that there was wound infection and flap necrosis for which flap advancement was done under local anesthesia and debridement was done and partial implant removal done. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13915 MFA No. 3684 of 2024 5) The infection was managed with antibiotics and this let to painful scars in both medial and lateral aspect of arm which led to stiffness and he underwent physiotherapy which was uneventful. 6) He is diagnosed to have mal-united supracondylar fracture left humerus with query non union of medical condyle query Avn with anklyosis changes in left elbow joint with moderate disuse osteoporosis changes involving bones around the elbow and arm with wasting of arm elbow and forearm muscles with restricted movements and painful scars on both sides of elbow with reduced grip strength in left hand with the limb progressing to become fall in nature with impending implant failure. 7) He is Unable to use his left upper limb for his minimal ADL which includes wearing clothes, personal hygiene using his hand for drinking water of self feeding and being dependent on his spouse for all his activities. 8) He has restricted range of motion at the elbow joint with reduced muscle strengths in all group of muscles around shoulder, elbow and hand with altered sensation involving upper limb and hand with cosmetically unacceptable and painful scars around arm and elbow with left upper limb progressing to become flail limb which is severely affecting his ADL. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13915 MFA No. 3684 of 2024 9. Finally, the doctor assessed the total disability of upper limb as 92% and whole body as 30.6%. Further, he stated that he requires one more surgery for implant removal which may cost around a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. 10. Considering the said arguments, this court finds that disability is to be taken as one third of 92% i.e., 31% disability for the purpose of calculation and the petitioner is entitled for future prospects of 25%. So the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.15,500/- + 25% x 12 x 14 x 31% = Rs.10,09,050/-. The petitioner incurred Rs.1,60,100/- towards medical expenses and the said amount is confirmed and he was in the hospital for a period of 14 days. The estimated cost towards loss of future medical expenses is Rs.1,00,000/- Therefore, this courts finds it reasonable to grant Rs.50,000/- for future medical expenses. The other amounts granted by the Tribunal are just and reasonable and needs no interference. The amounts granted under other heads are as follows: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13915 MFA No. 3684 of 2024 Loss of future income Rs.10,09,050/- Medical bills Rs.1,60,100/- Pain and sufferings Rs.50,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/- Loss of laid up period Rs.62,000/- Loss of transport, extra nourishment and attendant charges Rs.36,000/- Loss of Future medical expenses Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.13,97,150/- The total enhanced compensation amount is Rs.13,97,150/-. The compensation is enhanced from Rs.6,60,580/- to Rs.13,97,150/-. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER 1. The appeal is partly allowed. 2. The judgment and award dated 01.03.2024 passed in M.V.C. No.2285 of 2022 by the XIII Addl. Small Causes - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13915 MFA No. 3684 of 2024 Judge, ACMM, Court of Small Causes & Member, MACT- 15 at Bengaluru is modified. 3. The appellant is awarded a total compensation of Rs.13,97,150/- as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.6,60,580/-. Therefore, The appellant is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.7,36,570/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of filing the petition, till its realization. 4. So Insurance Company already deposited the awarded amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.7,36,570/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., within a period of one month from the date of this order. 5. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it. Draw the award accordingly. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE LL, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65