- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19600 MFA No. 3461 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3461 OF 2025 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. JAYARAMAN @ JAYARAMAN VEERAPPAN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O. VEERAPPAN, R/A. NO. 136/2, OPP. PRAVEEN MOTORS, BINNAMANGALA, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123 PERMANENT ADDRESS NO. 234/1, SINGILIMEDU VILLAGE, NEGAMARAI POST, NERUPUR, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU - 636 810. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. D. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RAJAMANICKAM V MAJOR, S/O. VELUSAMY, R/A. 25/1, SUBRAMANIYAM NAGAR, VEERAPPAM PALYAM, ERODE, TAMIL NADU - 638 009. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, TP HUB, 5TH AND 6TH FLOORS, KRISHI BHAVAN, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19600 MFA No. 3461 of 2025 HUDSON CIRCLE, OPP. BBMP HEAD OFFICE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, MG ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 REP. BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 06.08.2025, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.29.01.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO.763/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND MACT, BENGLAURU, (SCCH-2), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL 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 29.01.2025 passed in MVC No.763/2022 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, Court - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19600 MFA No. 3461 of 2025 of Small Causes and ACJM and MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH- 2), 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 28.01.2022 and filed petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.3,64,711/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed and mainly contended that the petitioner/injured was aged 35 years and was working as a lorry driver, earning Rs.30,000/- per month. In respect of the damage caused to the vehicle, he produced repair bills. But the Tribunal did not award any compensation under the said head. The petitioner produced the RC extract and driving licence - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19600 MFA No. 3461 of 2025 marked as Exs.P.15 and P.16 to show that he is a skilled worker. But the Tribunal considered only a notional income of Rs.15,500/- and did not granted any amount towards future prospects. The petitioner examined the doctor as PW.2 and he assessed the physical disability at 24% to the lower limb and 8% to the whole body. But the Tribunal has taken the disability at only 5% without any basis. The petitioner was aged 35 years, 7 months and 24 days as on the date of the accident. But the Tribunal applied the multiplier of ‘15’ by considering his age as 36 years. The compensation towards loss of income during the laid-up period was granted only for two months. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation and also prayed for grant of interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the Tribunal has rightly considered the age of the petitioner as 36 years and applied the proper multiplier. He further stated that valid reasons have been assigned by the Tribunal for taking the disability at 5%. Therefore, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19600 MFA No. 3461 of 2025 judgment and award passed by the Tribunal require to be confirmed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment in Civil Appeal No.2836/2015 dated 13.03.2015 between Shashikala and Others vs. Gangalakshmamma and Another, wherein it was held as follows: "17. Insofar as appropriate multiplier, the date of birth of the deceased as per driving licence was 16.6.1961. On the date of accident i.e. 14.12.2006, the deceased was aged 45 years, 5 months and 28 days and the tribunal has taken the age as 46 years. Since the deceased has completed only 45 years, the High Court has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 45 years and adopted multiplier 14 which is the appropriate multiplier and the same is maintained." 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon another decision in Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Laxmi in MFA Nos.20630/2013 and 21025/2013 decided on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19600 MFA No. 3461 of 2025 12.06.2019. In the said case, they referred Shashikala’s case and it was observed that the deceased was aged 60 years and 2 months. Therefore, the multiplier applicable to the age group of 56 to 60 years was taken as ‘9’. In the present case, the age of the petitioner is shown as 35 years, 7 months and 24 days. Therefore, the multiplier applicable to the age group of 31 to 35 years is to be taken as ‘16’. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the petitioner was a skilled driver and had produced the RC extract and driving licence. Therefore, his income is to be considered higher than the notional income. But the petitioner has not filed any income proof and mere production of the driving licence does not establish his income. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to consider his notional income at Rs.15,500/- per month, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The petitioner has also produced Ex.P.8-wound certificate and Ex.P.10-discharge - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19600 MFA No. 3461 of 2025 summary and examined the doctor as PW.2, who is an Orthopedic Surgeon. He has stated that the petitioner sustained right type III A compound displaced fracture of the shaft of the 1st metatarsal with Tarso metatarsal dislocation, fracture of the base of the 2nd metatarsal. The petitioner was treated with ORIF with K wire on 29/1/2021 and he was on regular follow up. Later it was removed after 4 weeks. The petitioner complains of unable to walk normally, unable to sit down, Squat and sit cross leg, swelling of the right foot. The recent X-ray of the right foot shows united fracture and assessed the physical disability of the right lower limb as 24% and that of the whole body as 8%. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to take the disability at 1/3rd of 24%, i.e., 8%. Accordingly, the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.2,38,080/- (15,500 × 12 × 16 × 8%). The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.1,14,211/- towards medical expenses as per Exs.P.11 to P.13, and the said amount is confirmed. The petitioner was admitted to the hospital for a period of five - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19600 MFA No. 3461 of 2025 days. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.30,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. The petitioner might not have attended to any other work at least for a period of three months. Therefore, he is entitled to a sum of Rs.46,500/- (15,500×3) towards loss of income during the laid-up period. The petitioner has produced vehicle repair bills under Ex.P.14 to the extent of Rs.45,975/-. There is no dispute regarding the accident and even as per the MVA report marked as Ex.P.7, there was damage to the vehicle. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the author of the bills has not been examined and therefore, the said amount cannot be granted. But considering the Exs.P.7 and P.14, this Court finds it reasonable to grant a sum of Rs.45,975/- towards repair charges of the vehicle. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19600 MFA No. 3461 of 2025 8. Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is as below: 9. Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,64,766/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 10. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. Sl.Nos. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1. Towards pain and suffering 60,000/- 2 Towards medical expenses 1,14,211/- 3 Towards loss of amenities 30,000/- 4 Towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges 30,000/- 5 Towards loss of income during laid up period 46,500/- 6 Towards loss of future earning capacity 2,38,080/- 7. Towards vehicle repair charges 45,975/- Total 5,64,766/- - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19600 MFA No. 3461 of 2025 ii. The judgment and award dated 29.01.2025 passed in MVC No.763/2022 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM and MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-2), is modified. iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,64,766/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.3,64,711/- 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.2,00,055/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19600 MFA No. 3461 of 2025 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.: 78