- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8168 MFA No. 7033 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7033 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: CHIKKAMARIYAPPA S/O LATE BOMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.305/A, HANUMANTHANAGAR, RAMANAGARA TOWN - 562 159. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K SRINIVASAMURTHY S/O KUPPUSWAMY, AGE:MAJOR, R/AT NO. 1314/16, PETEKERI, THATTEKERE ROAD, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160. 2. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, LAKSHMI COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, OPP: VANIVILAS HOSPITAL, K.R. ROAD, FORT, BANGALORE - 560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 04.10.2017, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8168 MFA No. 7033 of 2014 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.326/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, 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 12.08.2014 passed in MVC No.326/2011 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara, 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. The petitioner/injured claimant met with an accident on 22.05.2010 and filed petition before the Tribunal - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8168 MFA No. 7033 of 2014 for compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.91,095/- 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 stated that the petitioner/injured examined the doctor as PW.2, who stated that the petitioner/injured has sustained permanent physical impairment to the extent of 13% of the limb. In the cross-examination, PW.2 has further stated that due to the disability, the petitioner/injured is unable to do his coolie work. But the Tribunal has taken the disability at 10%. The petitioner/injured was aged 45 years, but the Tribunal has taken his age as 60 years, only based on a wrong statement made by the petitioner during cross-examination. The petitioner/injured was working as a coolie and earning Rs.300/- per day. But the Tribunal has taken his monthly income at Rs.4,500/-, which is on the lower side. The amounts granted under the other heads are meager. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8168 MFA No. 7033 of 2014 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance company stated that the Tribunal observed that the fracture is united well and has rightly considered the disability at 10% and also granted reasonable amounts under the others heads and it needs no interference. 6. Though it is stated that the petitioner/injured was earning a sum of Rs.300/- per day, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2010, his notional income is to be taken at Rs.5,500/- per month, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that as per the medical records, the age of the petitioner was 45 years. But the Tribunal has taken his age as 60 years on the ground that the petitioner himself admitted in the cross-examination that he was aged 60 years. The Tribunal assessing the evidence held that the petitioner was aged 57 years at the time of the accident and accordingly applied the multiplier of ‘9’. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said finding. As per Ex.P.6- wound certificate the petitioner sustained fracture of left patella and dislocation, which is grievous in nature. The PW.2-doctor stated that fracture is united well causing some discomforts. He - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8168 MFA No. 7033 of 2014 has assessed the permanent physical impairment at 13% of the lower limb. The petitioner/injured was working as a coolie and it was held that there is difficulty and discomfort in lifting the weights and walking long distances. The Tribunal considering the said aspect, rightly taken the disability at 10% and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said finding. Accordingly, the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.59,400/- (Rs.5,500 x 12 x 9 x 10%). The petitioner was hospitalized for a period of seven days. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities. The petitioner/injured might not have attended any other work at least for a period of three months. Therefore, Rs.16,500/- (5,500x3) is awarded under the head loss of income during laid up period and also finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. 7. Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is as below: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8168 MFA No. 7033 of 2014 8. Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,35,900/- 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 12.08.2014 passed in MVC No.326/2011 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara, is modified. Sl.Nos. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1. Towards pain and suffering 30,000/- 2. Towards loss of amenities 15,000/- 3. Towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges 15,000/- 4. Towards loss of income during laid up period 16,500/- 5. Towards loss of future earning capacity 59,400/- Total 1,35,900/- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8168 MFA No. 7033 of 2014 iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,35,900/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.91,095/- 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 the enhanced compensation of Rs.44,805/- 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.: 77