- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17037 M.F.A. No.287/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.288/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.287/2018 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.288/2018 (MV-I) IN M.F.A. No.287/2018: BETWEEN: SMT. KALAVATHI W/O SRI. ADINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCC:GARMENTS FACTORY WORK R/O HALAHALLI, DB PURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH M. LATUR, ADV.,) AND: 1. RAVI .N S/O SRI. NAGAPPA R/AT NO.3624, YALUVALLI ROAD VIJAYAPURA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562110. 2. SRI. SRINIVASA S/O DODDAMUNIYAPPA R/O ALLIPURA VILLAGE GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561210. Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17037 M.F.A. No.287/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.288/2018 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., 5TH & 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SYED SALMAN, ADV., FOR R2 SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADV., FOR R3 NOTICE TO R1 D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.69/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT, MEMBER, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN M.F.A. NO.288/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. ADINARAYANA S/O SRI NARASIMHAPPA AGED 46 YEARS OCC:WEAVER R/O HALAHALLI, DB PURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH M. LATUR, ADV.,) AND: 1. RAVI .N S/O SRI. NAGAPPA R/AT NO.3624, YALUVALLI ROAD VIJAYAPURA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562110. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17037 M.F.A. No.287/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.288/2018 2. SRI. SRINIVASA S/O DODDAMUNIYAPPA R/O ALLIPURA VILLAGE GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561210. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., 5TH & 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV., FOR R3 NOTICE TO R1 & R2 D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.70/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT These appeals are filed challenging the common judgment and award dated 18.08.2017 passed in M.V.C.No.69/2014 and M.V.C.No.70/2014 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member, Motor - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17037 M.F.A. No.287/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.288/2018 Accident Claims Tribunal, Doddaballapura (for short, 'the Tribunal'). 2. Though these appeals are listed for admission, 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 claimant in M.V.C.No.69/2014 submits that the Tribunal has committed a gross error in assessing the income of the injured at Rs.5,000/- p.m. He seeks to re- assess the income notionally. It is submitted that the assessment of disability by Dr.S.A.Somashekar - PW-3 is at 33% to the lower limb and 7% to the whole body. It is further submitted that the award of compensation by the Tribunal on all the other heads is also meagre and seeks to enhance the compensation appropriately by allowing the appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17037 M.F.A. No.287/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.288/2018 4. Insofar as M.V.C.No.70/2014 is concerned, he submits that the income of the claimant is assessed at Rs.5,000/- p.m. which is required to be re-assessed notionally and the disability of the injured claimant has to be re-assessed at 25% to the whole body as per the evidence of PW-3. It is submitted that the claimant sustained fracture of tibia and femur and hence, there is no reason for the Tribunal to reduce the disability to an extent of 8%. It is further submitted that the award of compensation by the Tribunal on all other heads is also required to be appropriately enhanced by considering the nature of treatment provided and the disability suffered by the claimant. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 5. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) SURESH JATAV Vs. SUKHENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS1 (ii) AABID KHAN Vs. DINESH AND OTHERS2 (iii) SURESH Vs. SENTHIL B & ANR.3 1 2025 AAC 1286 (SC) 2 2024 ACJ 2142 (SC) 3 C.A. @ SLP (C) No.8074/25 dt. 05.05.25 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17037 M.F.A. No.287/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.288/2018 6. Per contra, Sri.P.B.Raju, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 in M.F.A.No.287/2018 and Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 in M.F.A.No.288/2018 support the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submit that the claimants in both the claim petitions failed to produce any evidence with regard to their income and hence, the Tribunal was fully justified in assessing the income of the claimants at Rs.5,000/- p.m. It is submitted that the Tribunal, taking note of the fractures suffered by claimants and taking note of the fact that PW-3 has assessed the disability on the higher side to benefit the claimants to get higher compensation, has re-assessed the disability. It is further submitted that the award of compensation by the Tribunal on all the heads in both the cases is just and proper and does not call for any interference. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17037 M.F.A. No.287/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.288/2018 7. I have heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company in both the cases and meticulously perused the material on record. 8. The appellants-claimants as well as the Insurance Company are not disputing that both the claimants sustained grievous injuries in a road accident that occurred on 06.05.2014. The Insurance Company is liable to make good the compensation amount. In order to substantiate their claims, the claimants examined themselves as PW-1 and PW-2, got examined Dr.S.A.Somashekar as PW-3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P100. The Insurance Company examined Dr.Subhas as RW-1 and got marked Ex.R1. The Tribunal, considering the oral and documentary evidence has awarded the total compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- in M.V.C.No.69/2014 and Rs.1,58,000/- in M.V.C.No.70/2014 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17037 M.F.A. No.287/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.288/2018 9. Insofar as M.V.C.No.69/2014 is concerned, the claimant was working in a private firm under a substantial sum and in order to prove the vocation and income, the claimant has produced the I.D. card as Ex.P10. Considering the said evidence, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- p.m. In my considered view, based on the I.D. card, the assessment of income of the injured claimant may not be appropriate. Hence, her income is notionally assessed at Rs.8,500/- p.m. placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA). The evidence on record indicates that the claimant has sustained fracture of pattella and based on such fracture and injury, PW-3 has assessed the disability at 33% to the particular limb and considering the said evidence and other documentary evidence, I am of the view that it would be appropriate to re-assess the disability at 11% for the purpose of determination of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17037 M.F.A. No.287/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.288/2018 compensation. On having re-assessed the disability, income and taking note of the nature of treatment provided and the follow-up treatment obtained by the claimant, the compensation is required to be re-assessed as under: HEADS AMOUNT (in Rs.) Pain & suffering 40,000 Loss of amenities 40,000 Medical bills 15,825 Loss of future income due to disability (8500 x 12 x 15 x 11%) 1,68,300 Future medical expenses 15,000 Food, attendant charges and conveyance 15,000 Loss of income during laid up period (8,500 x 3 months) 25,500 Total 3,19,625 Thus, the appellant-claimant in M.V.C.No.69/2014 shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,19,625/- as against Rs.1,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 10. In M.V.C.No.70/2014, in the absence of any proof of income, the income of the claimant is notionally - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17037 M.F.A. No.287/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.288/2018 assessed at Rs.8,500/- p.m. placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by the KSLSA. The claimant has examined PW-3 who has deposed before the Tribunal that the claimant has sustained fracture of fibia and left femur shaft and based on such fracture, PW-3 has assessed the disability at 49% to the particular limb and 25% to the whole body. The Tribunal, considering the said evidence has assessed the disability at 8% to the whole body. In my considered view, the Tribunal has committed a grave error. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of SURESH JATAV, AABID KHAN AND SURESH referred supra, clearly held that unless there is any justifiable reason, the Tribunal should not tinker with the opinion of the expert. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra and also taking note of the fact that the claimant has sustained two fractures, I am of the considered view that the assessment of disability by the doctor to the whole body at 25% is on higher side. Hence, it would be - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17037 M.F.A. No.287/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.288/2018 appropriate to re-assess the same at 18%. Having re- assessed the income and the disability, the compensation under the other heads is also required to be re-assessed appropriately which is as under: HEADS AMOUNT (in Rs.) Pain and suffering 40,000 Loss of amenities 40,000 Medical bills 47,675 Loss of future income due to disability (8500 x 12 x 14 x 18%) 2,57,040 Future medical expenses 10,000 Food, attendant charges and conveyance 15,000 Loss of income during laid up period (8500 x 3 months) 25,500 Total 4,35,215 Thus, the appellant-claimant in M.V.C.No.70/2014 shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,35,215/- as against Rs.1,58,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 11. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17037 M.F.A. No.287/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.288/2018 ORDER a) The appeals are allowed in part. b) The impugned common judgment and award dated 18.08.2017 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.Nos.69/2014 and 70/2014 is modified to an extent that the claimant in M.V.C.No.69/2014 would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,19,625/- as against Rs.1,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and the claimant in M.V.C.No.70/2014 would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,35,215/- as against Rs.1,58,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. c) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. d) The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17037 M.F.A. No.287/2018 C/W M.F.A. No.288/2018 a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. e) The rest of the judgment and award of the Tribunal with respect to apportionment, deposit and release shall remain unaltered. f) Draw the modified award accordingly. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4