- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7288 MFA No. 9580 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9580 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SADASHIVA S/O LATE MUTTALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O AVVERAHALLI VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANATH KUMARA K.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. N.E. BHADREGOWDA S/O ERAIAH, NO.1559, 18TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS, MUNESWARA BLOCK, BANGALORE-560026. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.1200, 2ND CROSS, ASHOKNAGAR, MANDYA-571401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. JAIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; V/O DATED 05.01.2023 NOTICE TO R-1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16/03/2017 PASSED IN MVC Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7288 MFA No. 9580 of 2017 NO.410/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MANDYA. 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 MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 16.03.2017 passed in MVC No.410/2013 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM Mandya, for enhancing the compensation. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. Injured claimant met with an accident on 14.10.2012 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,70,000/-. Tribunal considered the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.3,58,500/- with - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7288 MFA No. 9580 of 2017 interest on the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an appeal and mainly contended that appellant was a driver and he was having license to drive Heavy Passenger Vehicle and he is also having a badge and thus earning Rs.15,000/- per month with batta of Rs. 200 per day. But the Tribunal has taken his income on lower side. The doctor assessed the disability as 39% and his functional disability as 100%. But the Tribunal erred in taking the same as 10%. Also, the amount granted under the other heads is meager. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation. Though it is stated that the petitioner was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof. No doubt he was a driver and driving heavy passenger vehicle but he has not filed any income proof. As he filed the driving license to show that he was a driver of heavy passenger vehicle, this court finds it reasonable to take his income as Rs.7,000/- per month and he was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7288 MFA No. 9580 of 2017 aged 34 years and the multiplier taken is 16. As per the evidence of CW1 orthopedic surgeon, he sustained fracture of tibia fibular of left leg as well fracture in the right hand wrist, that he has conducted surgery of the tibia by way of inter locking nailing and he was discharged on 23.10.2012. He also stated that rod fixed to the left leg of the petitioner still in the leg of him and same is yet to be removed. He was inpatient for 9 days. The doctor assessed the disability on the part of leg and hand as 39%. Hence, 1/3rd of the same comes to 13%. But the tribunal has taken only 10%. Therefore, the disability is to be altered as 13%. The loss of future income comes Rs.7,000 x 12 x 16 x 13% = Rs.1,74,720/-. Tribunal granted Rs.92,000/- towards medical expenses and it is confirmed. Considering the nature of injuries, the occupation of the petitioner, period of hospitalisation and other relevant factors such as age and other occupation and other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to grant compensation of Rs.60,000/- for pain and suffering - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7288 MFA No. 9580 of 2017 and Rs.30,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.30,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. He might not have attended any other work at least for a period of 5 months. Therefore, Rs.7,000 X 5 months = Rs.35,000/- is to be granted under the head loss of income during laid up period. Tribunal granted future medical expenses of Rs.25,000/- and it is confirmed. 5. Thus in all, components awarded by this court are as below, Sl.Nos. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 Loss of future income 1,74,720 2 Medical expenses granted by tribunal 92,000 2 Pain and suffering 60,000 3 Loss of amenities 30,000 4 Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. 30,000 5 Loss of income during laid down period 35,000 6 Future medical expenses 25,000 Total 4,46,720 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7288 MFA No. 9580 of 2017 Hence, the compensation granted by tribunal is enhanced from Rs.3,58,500/- to Rs.4,46,720/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 6. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award 16.03.2017 passed in MVC No.410/2013 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM Mandya, is modified. iii. The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,46,720/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.3,58,500/- granted by the tribunal. iv. Respondent/Insurance Company has already deposited the awarded amount before the tribunal. Therefore, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7288 MFA No. 9580 of 2017 respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.88,220/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order. v. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same. vi. On 19.01.2024, the delay of 153 days is condoned by this Court on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest in case of enhancement. Hence, respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interest for the delayed period. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56