- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34378 MFA No. 6599 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6599 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: B. C. CHANDRA @ CHANDRASHEKAR S/O CHIKKATHAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A BIDARAKOTE VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAMOD R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KEMPARAJU. B. C. S/O CHANNEGOWDA MAJOR, R/A BIDARAKOTE VILLAGE AND POST, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., NO.1576, IST FLOOR V.V. ROAD, MANDYA - 571 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NIRMALA S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS D/W) Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34378 MFA No. 6599 of 2022 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.13.10.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.17/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.4,45,757/- awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.17/2016 vide judgment and award dated 13.10.2021, is in appeal. 2. The fact that the accident occurred and the further fact that the offending vehicle was insured is not in dispute. 3. The Tribunal, on assessment of evidence, has awarded the following sums as compensation: Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.) 1. Loss of future earnings 2,26,800 2. Medical and hospitalization expenses 1,44,957 3. Transportation/conveyance, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure 10,000 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34378 MFA No. 6599 of 2022 4. Loss of earning during the period of treatment 9,000 5. Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries 40,000 6. Loss of amenities/Loss of expectation of life 15,000 Total 4,45,757 4. The Tribunal, has assessed the disability of the injured at 12% by considering the evidence of PW.1 - the injured, CW.1 - the Doctor and also wound certificate marked at Ex.P6. However, on careful examination of CW.1, it is evident that the Doctor has categorically stated that the claimant has sustained type IIIA Open Bimalleolar fracture dislocation left ankle and closed communited lateral malleolus fracture right ankle. Further, it was stated that the fracture of the right leg bone of the injured had united, but left leg bone had deteriorated. The claimant, being an agriculturist by occupation, was unable to carry on agricultural activities in the same manner as he had been doing prior to the accident on account of the injuries sustained by him. Having regard to the nature of the injuries and their impact on the functional capacity of the claimant, the Doctor assessed the permanent physical disability at 75% in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34378 MFA No. 6599 of 2022 respect of the affected limb. In the cross-examination of CW.1, a suggestion was made that, while assessing the permanent disability to the whole body, one-third of the disability could be taken into consideration in respect of whole body. Despite such suggestion, the Tribunal has taken only 12% disability. As such, in my considered view, it would be just and appropriate to assess the whole body disability at 25% instead of 12%. . 5. The Tribunal has rightly determined the monthly income, notionally at Rs.9,000/- as per the chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, since there was no credible documentary evidence to ascertain the actual monthly income. Since the disability is assessed at 25%, in view of law laid by the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.103807/2016 and connected with other matter and also by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sidram vs. United India - 2023 (3) SCC 439, the future prospectus of 25% requires to be added to the income. Accordingly, the income of the claimant would be Rs.11,250/- (Rs.9,000 + 25%). 6. As the claimant was aged 43 years, a multiplier of '14' would have to be applied. Consequently, the claimant would be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34378 MFA No. 6599 of 2022 entitled to a sum of Rs.4,72,500/- (Rs.11,250 x 12 x 14 x 25%) towards 'loss of future income'. 7. As a consequence, the amount of Rs.9,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of income during the laid up period' would also stand enhanced to Rs.27,000/- (Rs.9,000 X 3) treating the laid up period as three months. 8. Having regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant and the lasting effect of the same on the claimant, it would be just and appropriate to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- as against Rs.40,000/- towards 'pain and suffering' and Rs.25,000/- as against the sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities, awarded by the Tribunal. 9. The sum of Rs.1,44,957/- awarded towards medical expenses, being based on documentary evidence, is affirmed. 10. The sums awarded by the Tribunal under other heads remain undisturbed. 11. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and the claimant would be entitled to the following compensation: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34378 MFA No. 6599 of 2022 Sl. No. Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) As awarded by this Court (Rs.) 1. Loss of future earnings 2,26,800 4,72,500 2. Medical and hospitalization expenses 1,44,957 1,44,957 3. Transportation/conveyance, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure 10,000 10,000 4. Loss of earning during the period of treatment 9,000 27,000 5. Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries 40,000 50,000 6. Loss of amenities/Loss of expectation of life 15,000 25,000 Total 4,45,757 7,29,457 12. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to the total compensation of Rs.7,29,457/- as against Rs.4,45,757/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34378 MFA No. 6599 of 2022 13. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE GPG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15