- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19852 MFA No. 3739 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3739 OF 2024 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SARAVANA M S/O MADHU T AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.615, 3RD CROSS SIDDARTH COLONY, MADIWALA BANGALORE - 560 068. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RANGEGOWDA N.R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS HUB, 5TH AND 6TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE. 2. M. VINOD KUMARACHARI S/O M. RAJENDRACHARI R/AT SRI. BALAJI ARCADE NO.25, 3RD CROSS, 4TH MAIN, BTM 2ND STAGE, N.S. PALYA, BANGALORE - 560 076. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DT. 09.04.2026, NOTICE TO R2 D/W.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.09.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.2206/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL ACMM, MACT, SCCH-8, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19852 MFA No. 3739 of 2024 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the arguments of both sides. 2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and award passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in MVC 2206 of 2021 dated 01.09.2023. 3. The injured claimant/petitioner met with an accident on 14.03.2021 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of ₹20,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of ₹5,26,854/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Aggrieved by the said amount, the petitioner preferred this appeal and mainly contended that, he sustained fracture injuries which are grievous in nature. He was doing fabrication work and earning ₹20,000/- per month but the Tribunal erred in taking his income as ₹12,000/- per month. He examined the doctor as PW.2 who had assessed the disability of right lower limb to the extent of 50% and the whole body to the extent of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19852 MFA No. 3739 of 2024 16.66%. But the Tribunal erred in taking the same as 8% and that the amounts granted under the other heads are meagre and therefore requested for enhancement of the compensation. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the records. 5. Though the petitioner has stated that he was working and earning ₹20,000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof so far. As the petitioner met with the accident in the year 2021, this Court finds it reasonable to take the income at Rs.15,000/- per month as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. He was aged 24 years and the relevant multiplier is "18". Exhibit P.3 is the wound certificate and Exhibit P.9 is the discharge summary. Petitioner also examined the doctor as PW.2 who has stated that petitioner sustained following injuries : "1. Fracture shaft right femur; 2. Left superior and inferior pubic rami fracture; 3. Left sacral ala fracture with S1, S4, S5 vertebral fracture; 4. L5 spinous process fracture; 5. Fracture lateral aspect of sternum. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19852 MFA No. 3739 of 2024 The petitioner underwent surgery in form of CRIF with IMIL nailing of femur and conservative treatment for rest of fracture. On the patient visit for assessment of disability, following points noted : =Range of movements of right knee, hip restricted; =Healed scar mark over rt. hip noted; =Quadriceps wasting is seen =Associated with pain on movements knee hip and ankle =Daily activities cross leg sitting, squatting for using Indian toilets were found to be difficulty in rt limb; =x ray right femur fracture united with implant in situ and x-ray pelvis shows fracture united with OA changes in sacroiliac joint left side; and x-ray LS spine shows L5 S1 lysis." And thus assessed the permanent physical disability of the limb as 50% and that of the whole body as 16.66%. It is further stated that the petitioner has some difficulty doing the daily routine activities and he has to undergo one more surgery for removal of the implants and the estimated cost of the surgery is ₹30,000/-. 6. However, as per the cross examination it is seen that the said doctor is not a treated doctor. He has further stated that, except the femur injury, other injuries are treated conservatively. The pain on movements of knee, hip and ankle - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19852 MFA No. 3739 of 2024 is moderate and as per the x-ray, fracture is united. Doctor has stated that the petitioner has no neurological disability and his muscle power is normal. He has difficulty in doing day-to-day activities. It was suggested to the doctor that, as the petitioner was aged 24 years, he will not suffer from disability of more than 10% of the whole body, to which the doctor denied. However, the Tribunal observed that, the fractures are united and muscle power is normal and accordingly taken the disability as 10%. But considering the medical evidence on record, this court finds it just unreasonable to take the disability as 1/3rd of 50% i.e., 17%. Hence, the compensation towards "loss of future earning capacity" comes to Rs.5,50,800/- (15,000x12x18x17%). The petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 14 days and incurred ₹2,35,495/- towards medical expenses. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalisation and other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of ₹60,000/- for pain and suffering, ₹30,000/- for loss of amenities and ₹30,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Petitioner might not have attended any other work at least for a period of 4 months. Therefore, ₹60,000 (15000x4) is to be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19852 MFA No. 3739 of 2024 granted under the head "loss of income during laid-up period". The petitioner is also entitled for ₹25,000/- under the head "future medical expenses". Hence, the total compensation comes to Rs.9,91,295/- which is enhanced from ₹5,26,854/- granted by the Tribunal and hence, the enhanced compensation comes to Rs.4,64,441/-, as per the table hereunder : 7. Respondent No.1-Insurance company has already deposited the awarded compensation amount before the Tribunal and therefore, now is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of ₹4,64,441/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. within 1 month from the date of this order. On such Particulars Amount In Rs. Loss of future income (15000x12x18x17%) 5,50,800.00 Pain and suffering 60,000.00 Loss of amenities 30,000.00 Transportation,extra nourishment, & attendant charges 30,000.00 Medical expenses (bills) 2,35,495.00 Loss of income during laid down period (Rs.15000x4m) 60,000.00 Future medical expenses 25,000.00 Total Enhanced compensation 9,91,295.00 4,64,441.00 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19852 MFA No. 3739 of 2024 deposit, petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest. 8. However, it is noticed that it is a case of non-possession of driving licence by respondent No.2-rider of motor cycle involved in the road traffic accident and the Tribunal has already invoked the principle of "pay and recovery" as there was no DL and the petitioner being a third party should not suffer due to this and directed the Insurance Company to pay first and later on to recover from the owner of the vehicle. Hence, the Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law. With the above said observation, the appeal is allowed in part. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE RS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3