- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18756 MFA No. 4293 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4293 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHER ALI S/O IBRAHIM SAB AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O INDRA NAGAR MALEBENNUR HARIHAR TLAUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601 …APPELLANT (BY SRI GANGADHARA D C, ADVOCATE FOR SRI HARISH KUMAR M S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOPAL KRISHNA S/O YELLAPPA SANDIMANI AGED MAJOR DRIVER OF KA-24/M-1993 MARUTHI OMNI VAN R/O MANUVALLI SINDOGI VILLAGE SAUNDATTI TALUK BELGAUM DISTRICT-591126 2. GURUPADAPPA S/O MALLIKARJUN MELEVANTKI AGED MAJOR R C OWNER OF MARUTHI OMNI VAN NO.KA-24/M-1993 R/O A/P MUNAVALLI Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18756 MFA No. 4293 of 2020 SAUNDATTI TALUK BELGAUM DISTRICT KARNATAKA STATE-591126 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. HARIHAR (671204) VALI COMPLEX SHIMOGA ROAD HARIHAR-577601 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B R VENKATESH KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI H S LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R4; 1 AND R2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.02.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.101/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, HARIHAR AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by the appellant/injured seeking enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 19.02.2015 passed in MVC No.101/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Harihar (for short, ‘Tribunal’). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18756 MFA No. 4293 of 2020 2. Though this appeal is listed for orders, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. Heard the learned counsel Sri Gangadhara D C appearing for Sri Harish Kumar M S learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel Sri H S Lingaraju appearing for respondent No.4. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant/injured has filed this appeal seeking for higher compensation on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to award compensation under the head of “loss of future income due to disability” despite the evidence of PW3-doctor who has assessed the disability at 32% and it is submitted that the award of compensation on all other heads is also meager. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.4/Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal has clearly recorded the finding that the case involved falsity as the claimant has produced fake bills and the evidence of PW3 is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18756 MFA No. 4293 of 2020 rightly disbelieved on the ground that there is no justification for PW3 to assess the disability at 32%. Hence, he seeks to sustain the impugned judgment and award and prays to dismiss the appeal. 6. The appellant as well as the insurance company have not disputed the fact that the appellant met with a road accident on 06.07.2010 and sustained fracture of femur. In order to prove the claim, the injured examined himself as PW1 and also examined the Dr. G C Basavaraj as PW3 and produced the documentary evidence which are marked as exhibits from Ex.P1 to P16. The Tribunal considering the evidence placed on record, awarded total compensation Rs.66,000/-. It is to be noticed that PW3 has clearly deposed before the Tribunal that the appellant has sustained fracture of femur. No doubt, the assessment of disability by PW3 to the extent of 32% is on higher side. However, it cannot be ignored that the appellant has sustained fracture of femur. Hence, it would be appropriate to assess the disability at 10% to the whole body for the purpose of determination of compensation. In the absence of proof of income, the income of the injured is notionally - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18756 MFA No. 4293 of 2020 assessed at Rs.5,500/- per month subsequently, the proper multiplier could be ‘18’ considering that the age of the claimant/injured was 24 years on the date of accident and compensation is re-determined as under: Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation re-determined by this Court 1 Loss of future earning due to disability (5500x12x18x10%) Nil 1,18,800.00 2 Pain and suffering 10,000.00 40,000.00 3 Medical expenses 26,000.00 26,000.00 4 Food, nourishment, transportation, attendant charges etc. 10,000.00 15,000.00 5 Loss of amenities 10,000.00 40,000.00 6 Future medical expenses 10,000.00 10,000.00 Total 66,000.00 2,49,800.00 Thus, the appellant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,49,800/- as against Rs.66,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 7. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER a) The appeal is allowed in part. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18756 MFA No. 4293 of 2020 b) The impugned judgment and award dated 19.02.2015 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.101/2011 is modified to an extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,49,800/- as against Rs.66,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. c) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation excluding delayed period of 1722 days. d) The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. e) The rest of the judgment and award of the Tribunal with respect to apportionment, deposit and release shall remain unaltered. f) Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SN