- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12522 MFA No. 8765 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8765 OF 2018(MV-I) BETWEEN: MR. BALARAJ @ BALAAJI, S/O. SAMPANGI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO. 71/21, BALAJI NAGAR LAYOUT, LIGARAJPURAM, BENGALURU. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GIRISH K. V., ADVOCATE (VC)) AND: 1. M/S IFFCO - TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., NO. 141, 4TH FLOOR, SHANTHI TOWER, OPP TO COUPE, 3RD MAIN, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, KASTHURINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560043. Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12522 MFA No. 8765 of 2018 2. MR. CHINNAPAIAH R., S/O. RAMAIYA, NO. 211, PARVATHI NAGAR, ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH, V/O. DATED 15.10.2024) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.05.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1531/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & 19TH ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-23), 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 MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12522 MFA No. 8765 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the injured/claimant seeking for higher compensation challenging the judgment and award dated 10.05.2018 passed in MVC No.1531/2016 by the XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'). 2. Heard Sri.Girish.K.V, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-insurance company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant met with a road accident and sustained permanent disability of more than 50% in the said road accident. However, the Tribunal contrary to the evidence on record assessed meagre income of Rs.9,000/- per month, assessed disability at 20% which is contrary to the evidence of Pw.2-doctor. It is submitted that the award of compensation on other heads is also on lower side. It is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12522 MFA No. 8765 of 2018 further submitted that the appellant/injured was an inpatient for a period of 68 days and underwent three surgeries. However, no compensation is awarded under the head of loss of income during laid up period. Hence, he seeks to re-assess the evidence and award just and fair compensation to the injured/claimant by allowing them. 4. Per contra Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent supports the judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the avocation of the injured/claimant and held that the injured is an agricultural coolie and assessed the income at Rs.9,000/- per month. It is submitted that no evidence is placed to substantiate that the injured is a painter by avocation. It is further submitted that the appellant/injured has failed to examine the treating doctor and Pw.2 is not the treating doctor. Considering his evidence and documentary evidence the Tribunal is fully justified in assessing the disability of the claimant at 20%, which does not call for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12522 MFA No. 8765 of 2018 any interference. It is also submitted that the award of compensation by the Tribunal on all other heads is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the insurance company and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. 6. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is "whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference?" 7. The aforesaid point is answered in the affirmative for the following reason: The material on record indicates that on 11.08.2015 the appellant sustained injury in a road accident. Initially he was provided treatment at Government Hospital, Hosur and then shifted to Bowring Hospital, Bengaluru and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12522 MFA No. 8765 of 2018 thereafter for further treatment to Jayanagar Orthopaedic Centre. The records indicate that the injured was aged about 51 years at the time of accident and claims that he was painter by avocation. The injured/claimant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence before the Tribunal to substantiate his income and avocation. Hence, the Tribunal assessed the income of the injured at Rs.9,000/- per month notionally placing reliance on the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. In my considered view the same does not call for any modification. 8. It is to be noticed that the appellant sustained several injuries and suffered disability as is evident from the oral testimony of Pw.2 and discharge summary at Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 issued by Bowring hospital, Bengaluru and Jayanagar Orthopaedic Centre, Bengaluru. The aforesaid summary indicates that the appellant sustained several fractures and underwent three surgeries based on such summary, Pw.2 assessed the disability to the whole - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12522 MFA No. 8765 of 2018 body at 30% and 60% to the right limb. In my considered view the Tribunal has committed an error in disbelieving the said assessment of disability by Pw.2. 9. Taking note of the injuries suffered referred at Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 which have been extracted at paragraph Nos.13 and 14 of the judgment, I am of the view that the disability is required to be re-assessed at 30% to the whole body for the purpose of determination of compensation. It is also to be noticed that the appellant was inpatient for a period of 68 days and underwent three surgeries. 10. Pw.2 has opined that the appellant/injured has undergone three surgeries and implants were inserted and he is required to undergo another surgery to remove those implants. Considering the same the compensation under the head of future medical expenses is enhanced to Rs.30,000/- as against Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal has erred in not awarding any compensation under the head of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12522 MFA No. 8765 of 2018 loss of income during laid up period. Admittedly the injured was inpatient for a period of 68 days in the hospital and thereafter he is required to take further rest in his residence. Hence, four months compensation i.e., Rs.9,000 x 4 = Rs.36,000/- is required to be awarded under the head of loss of income during laid up period. 11. Furthermore, I am also of the considered view that the compensation under the heads of pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life is also required to be enhanced to Rs.70,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively. 12. Considering the said aspect and taking note of the oral and documentary evidence on record, I am of the considered view that the compensation is required to be re-assessed as under: Sl. No Description Amount 1 Pain and suffering Rs.70,000 2 Loss of future earnings due to disability (Rs.9,000 x 12 x 11 x Rs.3,56,400 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12522 MFA No. 8765 of 2018 30%) 3 Medical expenses Rs.2,01,860 4 Loss of amenities in life Rs.40,000 5 Conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges Rs.50,000 6 Future medical expenses Rs.30,000 7 Loss of income during laid up period Rs.36,000 Total Rs.7,84,260 13. In the result, the Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.7,84,260/- as against Rs.5,79,460/- awarded by the Tribunal. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12522 MFA No. 8765 of 2018 (iii) The compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. (iv) Respondent No.1-insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. (v) Insofar as deposit and release of compensation is concerned, the award of the Tribunal is unaltered. (vi) Registry to transmit the records forthwith to the Tribunal. (vii) Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE NS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23