- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32488 MFA No. 5721 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5721 OF 2017 (MVI) BETWEEN: SRI. VEERANNA S/O. LATE DODDAVEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAGHU R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. IFFCO - TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.8, 5TH FLOOR, SHANTHI TOWERS, 3RD MAIN, EAST TO NGF LAYOUT, KASTURINAGARA, BENGALURU, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. 2. SRI. K. SRINIVASAN S/O. KICHAMMA NAIDU, R/AT C-2, BS AMARNATHA NAGAR, AVANIYAPURAM, MADURAI, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 625 012. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.S. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 VIDE ORDER DATED 20.06.2013, NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32488 MFA No. 5721 of 2017 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.4486/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & 19TH ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the arguments of both sides. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 08.03.2017 passed in MVC No.4486/2016 by the Court of the XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and XIX ACMM, Member- MACT (SCCH-23), Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) seeking enhancement of compensation. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32488 MFA No. 5721 of 2017 3. The injured claimant met with a road traffic accident on 06.02.2016 and filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,87,580/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellant has preferred this appeal, contending that he sustained grievous injuries and was admitted in the hospital as inpatient for four days. It is further contended that the Tribunal awarded meager amounts under the other heads. The appellant submits that he was working as a cook in a hotel and earning Rs.12,000/- per month, but the Tribunal erroneously assessed his monthly income at Rs.7,000/ -. 5. It is further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was solely responsible for the accident, having driven the vehicle in a rash and negligence - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32488 MFA No. 5721 of 2017 manner and that a charge sheet has also been filed against him. However, the Tribunal erred in attributing 20% contributory negligence to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant has sought modification of the impugned judgment and award. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Tribunal rightly observed that the appellant was crossing the road at a place where he was not supposed to cross, as admitted by him during his cross- examination. It was further submitted that there was no zebra crossing at the spot and that the appellant was crossing NH-4. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the appellant was guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 20%. The manner of the accident reveals that, on 06.02.2016 at about 05.30 p.m., the driver of Tata Canter lorry bearing Registration No.TN-64-C-4093 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the appellant while he was crossing the road. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32488 MFA No. 5721 of 2017 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was crossing the road near the toll gate. Admittedly, a charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the lorry. It is for the Insurance Company to specifically plead contributory negligence in its written statement. However, no such plea was taken. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the finding of the Tribunal attributing 20% contributory negligence to the appellant is not supported by the facts or the evidence on record and is set-aside. 8. Though the appellant claimed that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, he has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his income. Since the accident occurred in the year 2016, his notional monthly income is taken at Rs.9,500/-, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The appellant was aged 50 years at the time of the accident, and the applicable multiplier is '13'. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32488 MFA No. 5721 of 2017 9. The appellant produced Ex.P-5-wound certificate and Ex.P7, discharge summary and also examined the treated Orthopaedic surgeon as PW.2. PW-2 deposed that the appellant sustained the following injuries: i. Right foot degloving injury with exposed bone, ii. Tenderness and multiple metatarsal fractures with bone loss. iii. He underwent surgery for the degloving injury and multiple fractures of the right foot and was discharged on 23.02.2016. Thereafter, he was shifted to the Plastic Surgery Department and remained admitted until 08.03.2016, during which period he underwent a free flap procedure and split skin grafting (SSG). On clinical examination, PW-2 found: i. The right foot was bulky and deformed. ii. Tenderness was present. iii. Loss of the great toe and first metatarsal bone. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32488 MFA No. 5721 of 2017 iv. Right ankle dorsiflexion and plantar flexion were restricted to 25° (normal 45°). v. Right foot inversion and eversion were restricted to 10° (normal 25°). The X-ray revealed malunited fractures with loss of the first metatarsal bone and the great toe. PW-2 assessed the permanent disability at 42% of the right lower limb, corresponding to 14% permanent disability to the whole body, in accordance with the ALIMCO Manual. PW-2 also advised foot debulking surgery and estimated its cost at Rs.30,000/-. 10. The Tribunal has rightly accepted the medical evidence and assessed the permanent disability at 14% to the whole body. Accordingly, the loss of future earning capacity works out to Rs.9,500×12×13×14% = Rs.2,07,480/-. 11. The appellant hospitalized for a total period of 13 days. Learned counsel for the appellant also produced photographs showing that the appellant had suffered - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32488 MFA No. 5721 of 2017 amputation of the great toe and another toe, and that there was malunion of the fractures. 12. Considering the nature of the injuries, the period of hospitalization, and the other relevant factors, this Court is of the opinion that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads are just and reasonable and do not warrant interference. 13. Thus, the compensation awarded by this Court is as follows: 14. In summary, the appellant/claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,42,180/- as against Rs.3,87,580/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced Particulars Amount in Rs. Loss of future earning capacity 2,07,480.00 Pain and suffering 60,000.00 Loss of amenities 75,000.00 Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges 25,000.00 Medical expenses 4,700.00 Loss of income during laid up period 50,000.00 Future medical expenses 20,000.00 Total 4,42,180.00 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32488 MFA No. 5721 of 2017 compensation works out to Rs.54,600/-. To this extent, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified. 15. In the result, pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in-part. ii. The judgment and award dated 08.12.2017 passed in MVC No.4486/2016, by the XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and XIX ACMM, Member-MACT (SCCH-23), Bangalore, is hereby modified; iii. The appellant-claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.54,600/-. (Rs.4,42,180/- minus Rs.3,87,580/-) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. iv. In view of the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, the Insurance Company, having already deposited 80% of the compensation amount, is directed to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32488 MFA No. 5721 of 2017 deposit the balance amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. v. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount, with accrued interest. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10