HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30948-DB MFA No. 2856 of 2020 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2856 OF 2020(MV-I) BETWEEN: PRATHAP S/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT GANGARASANAHALLI VILLAGE, HOLUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. SUSHILA TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., KANKROLA BHAGROLA ROAD, NEAR SARASWATHI PUBLIC SCHOOL, MANESAR GURGAON, HARYANA-122 052, REP. BY MANAGER 2. BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.343, 1ST FLOOR, 7TH BLOCK EXTENSION, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.S.LINGARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O/D.25.05.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W) Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30948-DB MFA No. 2856 of 2020 - 2 - THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.16.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.50/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, KOLAR, 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 JAYANT BANERJI & HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU) 1. This present appeal seeks to challenge the Judgment and Award dated 16.10.2019, in M.V.C.No.50/2017 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Kolar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’). By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,48,680/- to the appellant/claimant along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30948-DB MFA No. 2856 of 2020 - 3 - 2. Although the matter is listed for admission today, with the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal today itself. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Notice to respondent No.1 has been dispensed with, by an order dated 25.05.2022. 4. The brief facts are that the appellant/claimant was proceeding towards Bengaluru from Kolar on 28.11.2016 at about 2:30 a.m. for unloading the milk packets as a milk vendor in a Eicher vehicle bearing registration No.KA-01-B-1566, When the driver of a lorry bearing registration No.NL-01-N-2022 while driving in a rash and negligent manner, overtook the Eicher tempo and stopped his lorry in the middle of the road. As a result of this, the Eicher tempo collided with the lorry and the occupants of the Eicher lorry being the appellant/claimant sustained injuries. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30948-DB MFA No. 2856 of 2020 - 4 - 5. A claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’). It is stated that the claimant was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and getting bata at Rs.100/- per day as well. The claim petition was contested by respondent No.2/ Insurance Company. The respondent No.1 did not appear before the learned Tribunal and was proceeded ex-parte. 5.1. Based on the pleadings between the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal: “ISSUES 1. Whether the petitioner proves the accident occurred to on 29.11.2016 at 2.30 a.m., at Kolar- Bangalore NH-75 road, near toll at Hosakote, is due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing Reg.No.NL-01-N-2022 and the petitioner sustained injuries in the said accident? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so to what extent and from whom? 3. What award or order?” HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30948-DB MFA No. 2856 of 2020 - 5 - 5.2. In order to prove his claim, appellant/claimant examined himself as PW.2 and also examined a witness as PW.3. 31 documents were produced by the claimant along with the claimant in M.V.C No.49/2017, since the accident involved two persons. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company examined its Assistant Manager as RW.1 and produced two documents which were marked as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. 5.3. The learned Tribunal, after examining the evidence before it including Ex.P1 (FIR), Ex.P2 (complaint), Ex.P3 (spot mahazar), Ex.P4 (sketch), Ex.P5 (IMV report) and Ex.P8 (charge sheet) found that the case of rash and negligent driving was proved. In addition, the learned Tribunal examined Exs.P9, P10 and P15 (discharge summary), Exs.P11/16 (Medical Bills) Ex.P12 (Medical Prescription) and other related documents to give a finding that the injuries of the appellant/claimant were on account of the accident. The learned Tribunal further held that there are three dependants of the claimant. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30948-DB MFA No. 2856 of 2020 - 6 - 6. The learned Tribunal found that the evidence produced was with respect to the injury sustained and that the appellant/claimant had been treated for the same in the hospital and had examined his doctor/PW.3 who is also an Orthopedic surgeon. The learned Tribunal found that the opinion of the doctor was that the appellant/claimant has disability at 55% in respect of right lower limb and for the whole body he has disability of 18%. In addition, given the age of the claimant as 20 years, the learned Tribunal calculated disability, notional income of Rs.7,000/- per month and awarded loss of future income in the following manner: [Rs.7,000 X 12 X 18 X 18% = Rs.2,72,160] 7. In addition, amounts were awarded for pain and suffering, traveling conveyance, and towards medical expenses. The loss of income during the laid up period was also calculated as per the amounts awarded and thus the following compensation was awarded: HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30948-DB MFA No. 2856 of 2020 - 7 - Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount in Rs. 1. Towards loss of future income due to disability Rs.2,72,160-00 2. Towards Pain and Sufferings Rs.55,000-00 3. Towards travelling conveyance and attendant, food charges Rs.30,000-00 4. Towards medical expenses Rs.1,60,520-00 5. Towards Loss of future amenities Rs.10,000-00 6 Towards loss of income during laid up period Rs.21,000-00 Total Rs.5,48,680-00 7.1. Thus an amount of Rs.5,48,680/- was awarded along with interest @ 6% per annum. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the accident took place on 28.11.2016. Thus the as per the Notional Income Chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA), the notional income of Rs.9,500/- should have been awarded. In addition, it is contended that the amounts awarded under the non-pecuniary heads are less. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that given the position of law, the interest would be awarded at 9%. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30948-DB MFA No. 2856 of 2020 - 8 - 9. The learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company while does not dispute the fact that the notional income for the year 2016 was Rs.9,500/-, he contends that the amounts that were awarded were adequate. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company submits that the interest awarded is in accordance with law. 10. The question that arises for consideration before this Court is as follows: “Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal has been awarded in terms of settled legal principles? 11. Since the notional income for the year 2016 was Rs.9,500/-, the loss of future income due to disability would require to be enhanced as well as the loss of income during the laid up period. So far as concerns the disability awarded, the learned Tribunal found that based on the evidence of the doctor who was examined as PW.3 that the claimant sustained injuries in his right femur and had HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30948-DB MFA No. 2856 of 2020 - 9 - a fracture in his legs. He also has difficulty to walk, sit cross-legged on floor. The injuries described are such that the permanent disability with respect to right lower limb would be 55%. However, the whole body disability would be 18% and which is the opinion given by PW.3. Thus, to this extent, this Court finds no cause to interfere with the disability awarded. In addition, however the loss of future amenities has been awarded only at Rs.10,000/- while the amounts towards pain and sufferings are also less. The loss of future income due to disability would require to be calculated as follows: [Rs.9500/- X 12 X 18 X 18% = Rs.3,69,360/-] 12. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced in the following terms: Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount in Rs. 1. Towards loss of future income due to disability 3,69,360-00 2. Towards Pain and Sufferings 75,000-00 3. Towards traveling, conveyance, and attendant, food charges 40,000-00 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30948-DB MFA No. 2856 of 2020 - 10 - 4. Towards Loss of future amenities 40,000-00 5. Towards loss of income during laid up period 28,500-00 6. Medical expenses 1,60,520-00 Total Rs.7,13,380-00 Less: Awarded by MACT Rs.5,48,680-00 Enhancement Rs.1,64,700-00 13. On the said aspect of the interest to be awarded by the Tribunal, one of us, Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, has in a recent judgment captioned United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sri. Malyadri. M And Others1, after analyzing the precedents of the Supreme Court and this Court, has found that an award of 9% interest is in accordance with the settled provisions in the present day scenario, especially in cases of death and permanent disability. It was held that the award of 9% interest has been regularly upheld by the Supreme Court. It is apposite to extract the relevant portion of the judgment below: “15. The other issue raised is on interest awarded. It is apposite to set out the applicable provision. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter 1 2026 SCC Online Kar 4090 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30948-DB MFA No. 2856 of 2020 - 11 - referred to as ‘the MV Act’] provides for the award of interest in the following manner: “171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed. - Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf.” 15.1 A plain reading of the said provision shows that Section 171 of the MV Act does not prescribe any rate of interest and gives the discretion to the learned Tribunal to do so. It further sets out that the Tribunal shall award simple interest from the date of filing the claim. 16. Interest is the compensation for the factum of money being held back from the family of a deceased or the injured. The Courts have from time to time while discussing the principles for award of interest, held that the interest is awarded not because of any contractual obligation but because of the delay in claimants receiving compensation after the occurrence of the accident. 16.1 In Abati Bezbaruah vs. Geological Survey of India2, the Supreme Court has held that the interest rate must be fixed by taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by RBI from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc., into consideration. It was further held that Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 nor Section 4A(3) of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 are applicable in fixing the rate of interest. The relevant extract is below: 2 (2003) 3 SCC 148 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30948-DB MFA No. 2856 of 2020 - 12 - “18. Three decisions were cited before us by Mr. A.P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, in support of his contentions. No ratio has been laid down in any of the decisions in regard to the rate of interest and the rate of interest was awarded on the amount of compensation as a matter of judicial discretion. The rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc., into consideration. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Varying rates of interest are being awarded by Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court. Interest can be granted even if a claimant does not specifically plead for the same as it is consequential in the eye of law. Interest is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money which ought to have been paid to him. No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be fixed to have a general application in motor accident claim cases having regard to the nature of provision under Section 171 giving discretion to the Tribunal in such matter. In other matters, awarding of interest depends upon the statutory provisions, mercantile usage and doctrine of equity. Neither Section 34 CPC nor Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act are applicable in the matter of fixing rate of interest in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the interest at different rates depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, in my opinion, there cannot be any hard-and-fast rule in awarding interest and the award of interest is solely on the discretion of the Tribunal or the High Court as indicated above.” [Emphasis Supplied] HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30948-DB MFA No. 2856 of 2020 - 13 - xxx xxx xxx 19. The Supreme Court in Supe Dei (Smt) and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Another3 affirmed that 9% per annum is an appropriate and consistently applied rate of interest in motor accident compensation cases, reinforcing uniformity in such awards. The relevant extract of the judgment is set out below: “11. Coming to the question of interest this Court in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. observed that 9% is the appropriate rate of interest to be awarded and that rate is being applied in motor accident compensation cases.” [Emphasis Supplied] 20. However recently, the Supreme Court in Jagadish vs. Mohan4 awarded interest at 9% per annum on compensation, reaffirming that such rate is appropriate in cases involving death, serious injury and substantial loss. The relevant extract of the judgment is set out below: “15. The Tribunal has noted that the appellant is unable to even eat or to attend to a visit to the toilet without the assistance of an attendant. In this background, it would be a denial of justice to compute the disability at 90%. The disability is indeed total. Having regard to the age of the appellant, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18. In the circumstances, the compensation payable to the appellant on account of the loss of income, including future prospects, would be Rs 18,14,400. In addition to this amount, the appellant should be granted an amount of Rs 2 lakhs on account of pain, suffering and loss of amenities. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses (Rs 98,908); for extra nourishment (Rs 25,000) and for attendant's expenses (Rs 1 lakh) is maintained. The Tribunal has declined to award any amount towards future treatment. The appellant should be allowed an 3 (2009) 4 SCC 513 4 (2018) 4 SCC 571 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30948-DB MFA No. 2856 of 2020 - 14 - amount of Rs 3 lakhs towards future medical expenses. The appellant is thus awarded a total sum of Rs.25,38,308 by way of compensation. The appellant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation from the date of the filing of the claim petition. The liability to pay compensation has been fastened by the Tribunal and by the High Court on the insurer, owner and driver jointly and severally which is affirmed. The amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of 6 weeks from today and shall be paid over to the appellant upon proper identification.” [Emphasis Supplied] 21. The Supreme Court in Savita Devi & Ors. vs SBI General Insurance Company Limited and Others5 relying on the judgment in the case of Malarvizhi & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.6 has enhanced the rate of interest from 6% to 9%, holding that “just compensation” must be determined on principles of fairness, reasonableness, and equitability, and that lower rates may not adequately compensate claimants. The relevant extract of the judgment is set out below: “9. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeals succeed and the impugned order(s) by the High Court are set aside and that of the Tribunal is restored. Furthermore, the rate of interest awarded @ 6% per annum by the Tribunal is enhanced to 9% per annum as has been held in Malarvizhi & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. and in the interest of determining 'just compensation' based fairness, reasonableness, and equitability.” [Emphasis Supplied] 22. A similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. 5 CIVIL APPEAL NO.10053-10054/2024- order dated 02.09.2024. 6 (2020) 4 SCC 228 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30948-DB MFA No. 2856 of 2020 - 15 - Niru @ Niharika & Others7 wherein 9% interest awarded was upheld noting that despite fluctuations in economic conditions, such rate remains justified, especially in cases involving prolonged delay. It emphasized that interest should ordinarily run from the date of filing unless delay is clearly attributable to claimants. The relevant extract of the judgment is set out thus: “3. The Insurance Company filed an appeal before the High Court against the award amounts raising multifarious contentions. It was first contended that the accident occurred only due to the rashness and negligence of the car driver. On the quantum, it was submitted that admittedly the wife married in the year 2002 and the multiplier should have been only 7, taken from the death of the first husband. The exchange rate as adopted by the Tribunal, was also assailed together with the interest granted at the rate of 9%, which it was contended was against the existing interest rates. Specific contention was taken against the long delay in disposing of the claim petition, which was filed in the year 1995 and disposed of in the year 2017. The allegation was that the claimants who were residing in the U.K. were solely responsible for the delay occasioned. We see the said contention having been taken relying on Annexure A-4 produced in the memorandum of SLP filed. xxx xxx xxx 7. Yet another contention taken up is the interest granted at the rate of 9%. The Insurance Company relies on Annexure P-1 history of the case to contend that there was undue delay caused by reason of the claimants having not entered their evidence. From Annexure P-1, we see that the claim petition was filed on 28.12.1995 and it first came up for hearing on 11.09.2012. It is seen from Annexure P-1 that the case was 7 2025 INSC 822 dated 14.07.2025 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30948-DB MFA No. 2856 of 2020 - 16 - posted for applicants' evidence on various dates from 2012 to 2016. However, there is nothing to indicate that it was only by reason of the claimants' absence that the consideration was delayed. Merely because, on various dates, for 4 years, the case was posted for the claimants' evidence, it does not necessarily mean that the claimants were responsible for the delay. Long delays cannot, without proper substantiation, be cast upon the shoulders of one or other party to the lis. We hence do not find any reason to find the delay to be the sole responsibility of the claimants and in that circumstance necessarily interest must run from the date of filing of the claim petition, to the date of payment; for which precedents are legion, and we need not refer to them. 8. Further contention taken is the higher rate of interest of 9%, in challenge of which several precedents were placed before us. From the decisions perused what emanates is that in the 1980's, Courts were awarding 12% interest which stood reduced to 9% in the 1990's. With the advent of the 21st century and the economic recession world over, the interest rates fell considerably. But even now the rates offered by National Banks for long term deposits are 7% or more. Considering the over-all circumstances especially the long delay caused, we are of the opinion that 9% interest rate granted by the Tribunal is perfectly in order especially noticing the accident having occurred in the year 1995.” [Emphasis Supplied] 23. In another a recent decision the Supreme Court in Nidhi Bhargava & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Limited And Others8 the issue of grant of interest in motor accident compensation claims was discussed and considered. In the accident in question, 8 2025 INSC 526 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30948-DB MFA No. 2856 of 2020 - 17 - one of the claimants survived and suffered grievous injuries. The Tribunal had awarded compensation together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Although the Delhi High Court reduced the compensation amount under certain heads, it maintained the award of interest at 9% per annum. The Supreme Court ultimately restored the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and specifically directed that payment be made with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Here again, the Supreme Court did not interfere with the rate of interest and, in fact, reinforced the obligation of timely payment by directing that in case of delay beyond two months, an additional 9% interest per annum would be payable on both the principal amount and accrued interest. The relevant extract is below: 15. The High Court interfered and reduced the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal only on the ground that Return for the Assessment Year 2008- 2009 had to be excluded from consideration. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a businessman. The relevance of the Income Tax Return stems, in the context of the Act, for the period which it relates to i.e., the Financial Year concerned, and not on the date on which it is filed with the Income Tax Department. When faced with Returns for different Assessment Years, it would be upto the Tribunal concerned to adopt either the average income therefrom or choose an Assessment Year to rely upon. There is good reason to leave judicial discretion on the Tribunal to adopt one of the afore-noted two courses of action, bearing in nature the social purpose and object behind the Act, which is a beneficial legislation. It is quite unfortunate that the High Court in the present case has dealt with the matter in such a casual and superficial way where the rightful claim of the appellants under a welfare legislation has been drastically reduced without any cogent reason on a very tenuous ground, which we find to be totally unjustified. As pointed out in Shivaleela v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 563: ‘13.…In K Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, after taking note of, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30948-DB MFA No. 2856 of 2020 - 18 - inter alia, Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, the Court held that the ‘… Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation that seeks to provide compensation as per the contemporaneous position of an individual which is essentially forward-looking. Unlike tortious liability, which is chiefly concerned with making up for the past and reinstating a claimant to his original position, the compensation under the Act is concerned with providing stability and continuity in peoples' lives in the future. …’ (underlined in original) 16. On the strength of the reasons afore-indicated, the Impugned Order is modified to the extent that the original amount [Rs. 31,41,000/- (Rupees Thirty-One Lakhs Forty-One Thousand)] awarded by the Tribunal in MACT No. 357515/2016 as compensation is restored. Payment be made to the Appellants by the Respondent No. 1 at the rate of 9% interest per annum after adjusting amount(s), if any, that may have been paid during the interregnum. The exercise be completed within two months from today, failing which an additional 9% interest per annum shall be payable for the period of delay, both on the principal amount as well as on the interest component, till the date of actual payment. No order as to costs, in the circumstances. [Emphasis Supplied] 23.1 In S. Kumar v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.9, case a similar view was taken where the Supreme Court approved the award of interest at 9% per annum, observing that the learned Tribunal’s grant of 15% interest was ‘exorbitant’ but that the High Court had still allowed a ‘comparatively higher’ rate of interest at 9% p.a. 9 (2019) INSC 217 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30948-DB MFA No. 2856 of 2020 - 19 - 24. Thus, an analysis of the precedents shows that the award of interest over the last 5-10 years has infact consistently been awarded @ 9% p.a. or upholding such an award. xxx xxx xxx 29. An analysis of the aforegoing discussions of the Supreme Court, reflects that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the award of interest is intended to recompensate the claimant for being deprived of the use of money, which ought to have been paid at the time of occurrence of the accident. The rate of interest, therefore, must be just, fair and reasonable, having regard to the prevailing economic conditions and bank rates. 29.1. The award of interest is usually determined at the prevailing bank rate of interest on a case-to- case basis and at the rate which is just and fair and reasonable. 29.2 There cannot be any ‘straitjacket formula’ in determining the rate of interest and that the same must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The guiding principle remains that the rate must neither be punitive nor non-existent but must strike a balance between fairness to the claimant and reasonableness to the insurer. 29.3 The rate of interest 9% is more appropriate in case involving death and serious injury especially, where there is a long delay in the claimants receiving the compensation. 30. In the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2016 leading to the death of the wife of respondent No.1 and mother of respondent Nos.2 and 3. The award came to be passed in the year 2018. The learned Tribunal has deemed it apposite to award interest on the compensation @ 9% per annum. The award of interest is not punitive as is fair considering the prevailing economic condition and bank rates. In HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30948-DB MFA No. 2856 of 2020 - 20 - addition, it is now 10 years since the date of the accident. 31. The learned Trial Court has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum. This Court finds no infirmity with the Impugned Award of 9% interest in the circumstances of the present case…” [Emphasis Supplied] 14. Although the present case is not of a death or permanent disability, the appellant/claimant here was a young man aged about 20 years who was working as a Milk Vendor to support his family. He has been rendered permanently disabled to his left lower limb and will be unable to undertake his avocation as before. Accordingly, this Court deems it apposite to enhance the interest awarded to 8% per annum. 15. Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.7,13,380/- along with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. 16. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the following: HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30948-DB MFA No. 2856 of 2020 - 21 - ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part; (ii) The Impugned Judgment and Award dated 16.10.2019, in M.V.C.No.50/2017 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Kolar, is modified, to the extent that the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1.64,700/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum in addition to what has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. (iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the learned Tribunal remains undisturbed. (iv) The respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest at 8% per annum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30948-DB MFA No. 2856 of 2020 - 22 - (v) On deposit of such compensation, the same shall be released in favour of the appellant/claimant, on filing of an appropriate application by the appellant/claimant for withdrawal of the enhanced amount. (vi) The Registry is directed to draw the modified Award accordingly. (vii) The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment and the original records to the concerned Tribunal. (viii) Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE KG/BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8