- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15154 M.F.A. No.9837/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9837/2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. RENUKA KUMAR .S ALIAS RENUKA PRASAD C.S. S/O SRIRAMAIAH AGE 25 YEARS OCC: DRIVER, R/AT NO.1-4-849/57 CHANNAPURA VILLAGE, MELEKOTE, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH M. LATUR, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. MURTHY .V S/O VEERAIAH NO.222, ARADESHIHALLI POST DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 2. C.V. DEVARAJ NO.8/47, 4TH BLOCK GOPALAPPA GARDEN NEAR VENUGOPALA SWAMY TEMPLE DODDABOMMASANDRA Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15154 M.F.A. No.9837/2018 VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU-560097. 3. THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, NO.28/5 SENTONARY BLAG, M.G.ROAD EAST WING, BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.C. BETSUR, ADV., FOR R3 NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS D/W ON 10.03.2022) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.8108/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ACMM & XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, BENGALURU (SCCH-25), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15154 M.F.A. No.9837/2018 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the injured/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 17.10.2018 passed in MVC.No.8108/2016 by the XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and XXIII Additional Small Causes Judge, and Member, MACT, Bengaluru, (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 2. Though this appeal is listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. Sri.Suresh M.Latur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant submits that the appellant is a driver by vocation and used to earn more than Rs.15,000/- per month. The appellant met with a road accident and suffered disability which is evident from the oral evidence of PW2, who has clearly deposed that the appellant has sustained three fractures and his disability is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15154 M.F.A. No.9837/2018 to the extent of 25% to the whole body. However, the Tribunal, ignoring the oral and documentary evidence, has assessed the income at Rs.8,000/- per month and assessed disability at 8% and awarded meager compensation under all heads. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation appropriately. 4. Per contra, Sri.H.C.Betsur, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the vocation of the appellant-claimant cannot be accepted as a driver as he failed to produce any evidence to that effect. Hence, the Tribunal has notionally assessed his income and disability and awarded just compensation. He further submitted that PW2 is not a treated doctor and he has assessed the disability after two years of the accident, hence his evidence cannot be relied upon. He also submits that award of compensation under all other heads is also just and fair and needs no interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15154 M.F.A. No.9837/2018 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on both the sides and meticulously perused the material available on record including the Tribunal records. 6. The only point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is : "Whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal calls for any interference?" 7. The records indicate that the appellant-claimant met with an accident on 18.11.2016 and initially he was provided treatment at Nandi Hospital, Doddaballapura and later at NIMHANS, Bengaluru. The records also indicate that the appellant-claimant was in-patient from 19.11.2016 to 29.11.2016. As per the wound certificate issued by Nandi Hospital at Ex.P5, the appellant sustained the injuries viz., (1) Abrasion over left Maxillary area, (2) Laceration in left parotid area and (3) Leforte I B/1 Maxilary Fracture, right infra-orbital fracture, right - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15154 M.F.A. No.9837/2018 mandible fracture, linear fracture of right Zigmatic arch and temporo-zigmatic junction, fracture of B/L Ethomoid and nasal bone and linear fracture of bilateral nasal bones. PW2-Doctor has assessed the disability of the appellant- claimant by considering and examining the appellant and by perusing the records available and assessed the disability of the appellant-claimant at 25% to the whole body. Considering the nature of injuries referred supra, treatment provided to the appellant and the oral evidence of PW2, I am of the considered view that interest of justice would be met if the disability is re-assessed at 10%. Admittedly, the appellant-claimant has not produced any evidence with regard to the income, hence, his income is notionally re-assessed at Rs.9,500/- per month by placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by KSLSA. The appellant was aged about 25 years as on the date of accident, the appropriate multiplier would be '18', which has been rightly considered by the Tribunal. Hence, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15154 M.F.A. No.9837/2018 appellant is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability as under: Rs.9,500 X 12 X 18 X 10% = Rs.2,05,200/-. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, the compensation on all other heads is also appropriately re- assessed by considering the fact that the appellant was in- patient for about 12 days and suffered disability. Hence, the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.45,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.28,500/- (Rs.9,500 X3) towards loss of income during the laid-up period; Rs.40,000/- towards loss of future amenities and happiness and Rs.25,000/- towards attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment charges. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses and future medical expenses is unaltered. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to the modified compensation as under: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15154 M.F.A. No.9837/2018 Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,92,160/- as against Rs.2,72,700/- awarded by the Tribunal. 9. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER a) Appeal is allowed in part. b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,92,160/- as against Rs.2,72,700/- awarded by the Tribunal. HEADS AMOUNT (in Rs.) Pain & suffering 45,000 Medical expenses 18,460 Loss of income during laid up period (Rs.9,500 x 3) 28,500 Loss of future income due to disability 2,05,200 Loss of future amenities and happiness 40,000 Attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment charges 25,000 Future medical expenses 30,000 Total 3,92,160 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15154 M.F.A. No.9837/2018 c) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. d) The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. e) The entire compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant- claimant. f) Registry shall transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith. g) Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9