- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7188 MFA No. 6304 of 2024 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. 6304 OF 2024 (MV-I) BETWEEN: GOWTHAM S/O. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.22, VADDARAPALYA, BENGALURU. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SREENIVASAIAH A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRAKASH S/O. SRI. NALLURAPPA NEAR BEERESHWARA TEMPLE, ANEKAL MAIN ROAD, ATTIBELE, BANGALORE - 562 107. 2. THE MANAGER, IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CSC-141, SRI SHANTHI TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, 3RD MAIN, 141, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 048. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 28.01.2026, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7188 MFA No. 6304 of 2024 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.06.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.4513/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCH-25), 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 05.06.2024 passed in MVC No.4513/2020 on the file of the XXIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-25), for enhancing the compensation. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7188 MFA No. 6304 of 2024 3. The petitioner/injured claimant met with an accident on 24.11.2020 and filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.24,47,946/-. But it fixed up the contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner at 10% and on the driver of the car at 90% and directed both the respondents to deposit a sum of Rs.22,03,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed. 4. It is contended that the Tribunal erred in fastening 10% contributory negligence on the petitioner. The petitioner was doing loading and unloading work and was earning more than Rs.30,000/- per month. At the time of the accident, the driver of the offending car, without giving any indication or signal, suddenly turned the vehicle towards the right side. As a result, the appellant, who was riding the motorcycle behind the car, dashed against it. The charge sheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The compensation awarded under the other - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7188 MFA No. 6304 of 2024 heads is meagre. The petitioner/injured examined PW.4- Neurosurgeon and PW.3-Orthopedic Surgeon, who have suggested another surgery for removal of the implants, the cost of which is estimated at Rs.30,000/-. But the Tribunal has granted only Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation. 5. The manner of accident shows while the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-51-ER-5691 reached near NH-7, Yadavanahalli, driver of a car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MN-2733 driven it in rash and negligent manner and suddenly turned his vehicle towards right side without any indication or signal, hence the petitioner hit the car from behind. In the cross-examination of the petitioner, he admitted that there was 20 feet distance between car and bike he fell down due to skid on sand. As per Ex.P.9 and evidence of RW.1, the petitioner was under influence of alcohol. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly assessed 10% contributory negligence on his part and it is confirmed. 6. Though it is stated that the petitioner was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month, he has not filed any income - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7188 MFA No. 6304 of 2024 proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2020, his notional income is to be taken at Rs.14,500/- per month, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As per Exs.P.6 and P.7, the petitioner/injured was aged 24 years and the applicable multiplier is ‘18’. As per Ex.P.9- discharge summary, the petitioner has sustained severe head injury, left acetabulum posterior columnar fracture and left forearm cut lacerated wound, which is grievous in nature. The petitioner filed Exs.P.13 and P.14-MLC Extracts and also examined three doctors. PW.3 assessed the disability of left lower limb at 36% and that of the whole body at 18%. He further stated that there is only one side of acetabulum fracture occurred and there is no injury or fracture to the head of the femur. The fractures require 3 to 4 months for uniting. PW.4- Neurosurgeon stated that the petitioner had undergone surgery and his neurological disability is 45% due to the head injury and he verified the relevant documents. The Tribunal considering the medical evidence and also nature of work of the petitioner, has rightly considered the disability at 60%. In view of the disability being assessed at 60%, the petitioner is also entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects, as per the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7188 MFA No. 6304 of 2024 decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi1. Accordingly, loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.26,30,880/- (14,500+40%x12x18x60%). The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.3,99,746/- towards medical expenses, as per the relevant documents and it is confirmed. Considering the nature of injury sustained by the petitioner, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.40,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. The petitioner might not have attended any other work at least for a period of four months. Therefore, Rs.58,000/- (14,500 x 4) is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period. PW.3 has suggested that the estimated cost for removal of the implants is Rs.30,000/-. This Court finds it reasonable to grant the said amount as future medical expenses. Therefore, Rs.30,000/- is granted towards future medical expenses. 7. Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is as below: 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7188 MFA No. 6304 of 2024 8. Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.32,83,626/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 9. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 05.06.2024 passed in MVC No.4513/2020 on the file of the Sl.Nos. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1. Towards pain and suffering 75,000/- 2 Towards medical expenses 3,99,746/- 3 Towards loss of amenities 50,000/- 4 Towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges 40,000/- 5 Towards loss of income during laid up period 58,000/- 6 Towards future medical expenses 30,000/- 7. Towards loss of future earning capacity 26,30,880/- Total 32,83,626/- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7188 MFA No. 6304 of 2024 XXIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-25), is modified. iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.32,83,626/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.24,47,946/- granted by the tribunal. iv. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit 90% of the enhanced amount of Rs.8,35,680/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order. v. On such deposit, petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60