- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23424 M.F.A. No.1353/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1353/2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: GURUSWAMY S/O LATE BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT EDENAHALLIPALYA KASABA HOBLI TIPTUR TALUK-572201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K, ADV.,) AND: MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560027. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. F.S. DABALI, ADV.,) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07/01/2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.341/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC. AND MACT-XIV AT TIPTUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23424 M.F.A. No.1353/2019 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the injured/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 07.01.2019 passed in MVC.No.341/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., & XIV MACT, Tiptur, (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 2. Sri.K.Shantharaj, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the appellant met with a road accident on 06.09.2014 and sustained grievous injuries on his right fumura, neck of the right fumura and fracture of both bones of right leg and the appellant was operated on two legs and incurred substantial expenses of more than ₹4,00,000/- towards medical treatment. It is submitted that in order to prove the disability, the appellant has examined PW3 Doctor, who has deposed before the Tribunal that the appellant has sustained 54% - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23424 M.F.A. No.1353/2019 disability. However, the Tribunal incorrectly assessed the disability at 10%. It is further submitted that in order to prove the income, the appellant examined himself before the Tribunal and clearly deposed that he was an agriculturist and also working as a Weaver with PW2; and PW2 also stated the same thing before the Tribunal. It is also submitted that considering the loss of income in the agriculture as well as the weaving, at least income of ₹15,000/- per month is required to be assessed and also seeks to award compensation under all other heads appropriately. 3. Sri.F.S.Dabali, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that as far as the agricultural income is injured concerned, the RTCs indicate the name of the mother of the appellant and there is no reduction in the income from the agriculture. It is submitted that PW2 is claimed to be an employer of the appellant-injured, however, no documentary evidence is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23424 M.F.A. No.1353/2019 placed on record to substantiate that he used to pay ₹8,000/- to ₹10,000/- per month nor has he produced any license, electricity bill etc. It is further submitted that Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability at 10% considering the fact that the doctor has assessed the disability to the whole body at 18%. Hence, he submits that the award of compensation by the Tribunal under all other heads is correct and there is no scope for enhancement. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on both the sides and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The appellant and respondent are not in dispute that the appellant met with road accident on 06.09.2014 and suffered grievous injuries on his right fumura, neck of right fumura and fracture of both bones of right leg. The appellant was treated as an inpatient for 7 days in the hospital and it is averred that he has incurred more than - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23424 M.F.A. No.1353/2019 ₹4,00,000/- towards medical expenses. In order to prove the income, the injured himself has deposed before the Tribunal that he is an agriculturist as well as working under PW2 as a Weaver and used to earn ₹20,000/- per month. The Tribunal assessed the income at ₹4,500/- per month. The notional income fixed by the KSLSA for the unskilled labour for the year 2014 is ₹8,500/-, however, in the case on hand, the evidence of appellant-injured as well as the evidence of PW2 demonstrate that appellant-injured was working as a Weaver and used to earn salary of ₹8,000 to ₹10,000/- per month, in addition to that, due to disability, the appellant has made assertion that there is reduction in the income from agricultural activity. The appellant-injured, in order to prove the fact that he is an agriculturist, has produced RTC extracts at Exs.P85 to P87. Hence, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, I am of the considered view that interest of justice would be met if this Court reassesses the income of the appellant-injured at ₹9,500/- per month. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23424 M.F.A. No.1353/2019 6. In order to prove the disability, the appellant- claimant has examined Dr.Prasad Murugappa Gowda as PW-3, who has assessed the disability at 54% to the right lower limb and 18% to the whole body. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there is no such concept of assessment of disability to the limb and to the whole body, what is required to be assessed is the functional disability of the injured and required to award compensation taking note of the avocation of the injured and the extent to which disability affects it. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the assessment of compensation should be based on considering reduction of earning capacity due to the disability by considering the income of the injured prior to the accident and post accident income and also the disability assessed by the doctor and also required to consider the factors like nature of avocation etc. Hence, considering the said aspects, I am of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if the disability is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23424 M.F.A. No.1353/2019 reassessed at 18% for the purpose of assessment of compensation. The appellant was aged about 29 years as on the date of accident, the appropriate multiplier would be 18, which has been rightly considered by the Tribunal. Hence, the appellant is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability as under: ₹9,500X 12 X 17 X 18% = ₹3,48,840/-. 7. Having reassessed the income as well as the disability and considering the injuries suffered and the treatment provided to the appellant-injured, I am of the considered view that the compensation under other heads is required to be re-assessed appropriately and required to award compensation under some of the heads. The evidence of PW3 Doctor indicates that the appellant needs to undergo another surgery and requires substantial amount towards the same as well as for following treatment and he has assessed the estimated cost for future medical expenses would be ₹1,50,000. In my - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23424 M.F.A. No.1353/2019 considered view the said assessment by the doctor is without any material particulars like estimation etc. The Tribunal has already awarded ₹20,000/- under the head of future medical expenses, hence, the ends of justice would be met if an additional sum of ₹20,000/- is awarded under the said head. It is noticed that the Tribunal has ignored certain bills produced by the appellant and perusing the same, the compensation of ₹1,50,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses instead of ₹1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 8. The appellant would be entitled to compensation of ₹45,000/- towards pain & suffering; ₹40,000/- towards loss of amenities in life and ₹25,000/- towards food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. The appellant would be entitled to ₹28,500/- (₹9,500 X 3) towards the loss of income during laid-up period. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23424 M.F.A. No.1353/2019 9. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to modified compensation as under: Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a total compensation of ₹6,77,340/- as against ₹2,61,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. 10. 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 ₹6,77,340/- as HEADS AMOUNT (in Rs.) Pain and suffering 45,000 Medical expenses 1,50,000 Loss of future income due to disability 3,48,840 Loss of amenities in life 40,000 Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 25,000 Future medical expenses 40,000 Loss of income during laid up period 28,500 Total 6,77,340 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23424 M.F.A. No.1353/2019 against ₹2,61,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. 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 respondent-Corporation 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 apportionment, deposit and disbursement shall be made as per award of the Tribunal. f) Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22