- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30442 MFA No. 1747 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1747 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MAHADEVANAIKA S/O VEERANAIKA, 34 YEARS R/O KONANAHOSHALLI VILLAGE DODDAHEJJUR POST, HANAGODU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUMA K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PADMANABHA KEDILAYA V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. AROGYASWAMY S/O LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30442 MFA No. 1747 of 2019 R/AT NO.1748, HOUSING BOARD COLONY H.D. KOTE TOWN POST AND TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 121. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, CLUB COMPLEX POST OFFICE ROAD HUNSUR TOWN - 571 105. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.A. RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 08.08.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED12.12.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.216/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MACT, HUNSUR, 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: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30442 MFA No. 1747 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Ms.Suma.K, who represents Sri.Padmanabha Kedilaya.V learned counsel on record for the appellant as well as Sri.B.A.Ramakrishna learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Challenge in this appeal is the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hunsur in MVC No.216/2015 dated 12.12.2018. This is a claimants appeal. 3. The claim of the appellant is for Rs.15,65,000/- in total. However the tribunal through the impugned order held that he is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,75,706/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the same the claimant is before this Court. 4. Stressing upon the point that the compensation granted is too meager, learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant sustained multiple injuries in a road traffic accident. One of those injuries resulted in amputation of foot. Appellant was a coolie by profession but due to the injuries sustained, he lost his entire livelihood. Though PW2 stated that the disability is 56%, Tribunal took the disability as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30442 MFA No. 1747 of 2019 19% only. Learned counsel further states that without any basis tribunal took the notional income of the appellant as Rs.6,000/- per month. Learned counsel also submitting that compensation granted under all heads is too meagre and that no compensation is awarded for the future medical expenses, seeks for enhancement. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand states that the disability of 56% as spoken by PW2 is only in respect of a particular limb. Learned counsel submits that the disability assessed by the tribunal i.e. 19% in respect of whole body is highly justifiable. Learned counsel also contented that the accident occurred in the year 2014 and for the relevant period the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income as Rs.8,500/- per month for settlement of the claims and taking said figure into consideration there may be marginal enhancement. 6. By all the evidence produced, appellant succeeded in establishing that he sustained abrasion over left wrist, abrasion over right forearm, abrasion over palm and a grievous injury to right fore foot. The evidence of PW2 goes to show that on X- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30442 MFA No. 1747 of 2019 ray, commuted fractures of both bones of foot including metatarsal and tarsal bones was found and the appellant was operated and the fracture was fixed with multiple K wires but the fore foot became gangrenous and therefore mid foot amputation was done. Thus, by the evidence of PW2 it is clear that the crush injury sustained to right foot resulted in mid foot amputation. Though PW2 stated that the disability is 56%, he did not state that such disability is in respect of whole body. 7. Having considered the totality of evidence produced, the tribunal rightly held that the disability in respect of whole body can be taken as 19% and the same thus requires no interference. 8. Having considered the submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent No.2, this Court considers desirable to take the notional income of the appellant as Rs.8,500/- per month. Thus on taking the notional income as Rs.8,500/- per month and without disturbing the other parameters i.e. application of appropriate multiplier '17' and the disability in respect of whole body as 19%, the compensation which appellant is entitled to receive towards - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30442 MFA No. 1747 of 2019 loss of future earnings comes to Rs.3,29,460/- (8,500 x12x17x19%). 9. Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.12,000/- only towards loss of income during laid up period. But having considered the nature of injuries sustained and the extensive treatment taken, this Court is of the view that appellant could not have attended his normal pursuits at least for a period of 6 months. Therefore, loss of earnings during laid up period comes to Rs.51,000/- (8,500x6). Further this Court is of the view that the compensation granted by the Tribunal under all other heads is also on lower side and justifiable sum is required to be awarded. That apart, no amount is awarded for the medical expenses which the appellant is required to incur in future in the light of the fact that the grievous injury to the foot resulted in mid foot amputation. This Court is of the view that appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses. Thus compensation which appellant is entitled to receive under each head is as under:- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30442 MFA No. 1747 of 2019 Heads Amount in Rs. Compensation for pain and suffering 50,000 Towards food, extra nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 20,000 Medical expenses 97,146 Loss of future earnings 3,29,460 Loss of income during laid up period 51,000 Loss of amenities 30,000 Future medical expenses 25,000 Total 6,02,606 10. Thus the discussion on the material aspects of the case reveals that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.6,02,606/- as compensation. Therefore the appeal is disposed of with the following:- ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. Compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hunsur through orders in MVC No.216/2015 dated 12.12.2018 is enhanced from Rs.3,75,706/- to Rs.6,02,606/-. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30442 MFA No. 1747 of 2019 iii. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. v. On such deposit, appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6