- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18495 MFA No. 1200 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1200 OF 2026 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI SHIVAKUMAR M S/O MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 260, 8TH CROSS, G BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA, MYSURU-570 022. &APPELLANT (BY SRI. K. SHANTHA RAJ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI GIRISHA S S/O LATE SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 148/38, SEWAGE FARM OPP. VIVEKANANDA SCHOOL, KANAKAGIRI, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSURU-570 008. 2. THE MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GEN.INS.CO.LTD., 1ST FLOOR, MYTHRI ARCADE, NEW KANTHARAJA URS ROAD, NEAR SARASWATHI THEATRE, SARASWATHINPURAM, MYSURU-570 009. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R2, V/O DATED 20.02.2026, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18495 MFA No. 1200 of 2026 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED.30.01.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO.1435/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION 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 30.01.2025 passed in MVC No.1435/2023 on the file of the Prl. Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Mysuru, for enhancing the compensation. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. Injured claimant met with an accident on 06.07.2023 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of 10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered entire evidence on record and granted an - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18495 MFA No. 1200 of 2026 amount of Rs.2,46,560/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from date of petition till realization. 4. Aggrieved by the said award, he preferred an appeal and mainly contended that the appellant was aged 43 years doing welding work and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. But the tribunal erred in taking the income of Rs.16,000/-. The petitioner examined the doctor as PW2 and he assessed the disability as 6%. But the Tribunal has taken 1/3rd of 6%. As per the guidelines of the Indian Government of 2018, question of deducting 1/3rd does not arise and it needs to be modified. The amounts granted under other heads are meager and also interest is to be granted higher than 12%. Therefore, requested for the enhancement of the compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that the doctor rightly assessed the disability of the limb as 6% and thus the Tribunal rightly considered 1/3rd of the same. Therefore, it needs no interference and the tribunal also granted reasonable amounts under other heads and it is to be confirmed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18495 MFA No. 1200 of 2026 6. Though it is stated that the petitioner was earning Rs.1,000/- per day, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2023, the Tribunal has rightly considered his income as Rs.16,000/- per month, as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, he was aged 43 years and the relevant multiplier is 8149. Ex. P7 is the Wound Certificate and Ex.P8 is the discharge summary. Ex.P11 is the entire case sheet. The petitioner also examined the doctor as PW2. He is a consultant doctor Orthopedic Surgeon. He stated that the petitioner sustained fracture of both bones of their forearm. He advised for removal of the implants. Petitioner has not complained of any issues or difficulties due to the implants. But considering his age, he was advised for removal of the implants and he assessed 6% physical disability. It is stated that the petitioner sustained injury to the left fore arm and small injuries to the left foot, further, fracture of the left radius and ulna bones. Also he was operated for open reduction and internal fixation with dynamic compression plates for fractures of radius and ulna left side under anesthesia. The injured complained of mild pain and stiffness in the left wrist and difficulty in lifting heavy weight - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18495 MFA No. 1200 of 2026 with the left hand. On examination, surgical scars were seen over the left fore arm Mild tenderness over the left wrist. Left Wrist flexor muscle power is grade-IV (MRC) measured by clinically and comparatively. Range of motion of left wrist, palmer flexion is terminally limited by 10 degrees, Dorsiflexion is also terminally restricted by 10 degrees. Supination is terminally restricted by 5 degrees. Pronation is also terminally restricted by 5 degrees as measured by Goniometer. X-Ray was taken and it showed left radius and ulna fractures well united with Implant insitu. He was advised implants removal which would cost approximately Rs.45,000/- and assessed 6% disability in relation to the whole body and he is a treated doctor. 7. In the cross-examination, he stated that though petitioner has not complained of any issues or difficulties due to the implants, considering his age, he was advised for removal of the implants. He further admitted that he assessed the physical disability and not functional disability on the basis of the avocation of the petitioner. He has not issued any disability certificate. The Tribunal rightly considered that 1/3rd of 6% the disability as 2% and loss of future earning capacity is = - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18495 MFA No. 1200 of 2026 Rs.16,000 x 12 x 14 x 2% = Rs.53,760/-. The tribunal also granted Rs.69,800/- towards medical expenses and it is confirmed. He was admitted in the hospital for a period Of 3 days. Considering his occupation, nature of injuries, this court finds it reasonable to grant, Rs.40,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs.30,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Petitioner might not have attended any other work any other work atleast for period of 3 months. Therefore, Rs.16,000 x 3 = Rs.48,000/- has already been granted and it needs no interference. Tribunal granted, Rs.20,000/- for future medical expenses and it is confirmed. PW2 has stated that he requires Rs.45,000/- for removal of the implants. Therefore, this court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.40,000/- for future medical expenses. 8. Thus in all, components awarded by this court are as below, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18495 MFA No. 1200 of 2026 Hence, the compensation granted by tribunal is enhanced from Rs.2,46,560/- to Rs.3,01,560/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 9. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 30.01.2025 passed in MVC No.1435/2023 on the file of the Prl. Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Mysuru, is modified. Sl.Nos. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 Loss of future earning capacity 53,760 2 Medical bills 69,800 2 Pain and suffering 40,000 3 Loss of amenities 20,000 4 Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. 30,000 5 Loss of income during laid down period 48,000 6 Future medical expenses 40,000 TOTAL 3,01,560 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18495 MFA No. 1200 of 2026 iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,01,560/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.2,46,560/- granted by the tribunal. iv. Respondent/Insurance Company has already deposited the awarded amount before the tribunal. Therefore, respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.55,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order. v. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same. vi. On 20.02.2026, the delay of 261 days is condoned by this Court on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest in case of enhancement. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interest for the delayed period. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV CT:NR_List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57