- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:731 MFA No. 1467 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1467 OF 2023(MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI ANILKUMAR B. N., S/O NARASHIMAHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, BYYAPPANAHALLI, DIBBURAHALLI, SHIDLAGATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAGADEESH H T.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SATHISH KUMAR V., S/O VENKATACHALAM, MAJOR, R/AT 2H/24, THAILAMBIHAL NAGARA, ST.NO.4, TIRUCHENGODE, NAMAKKAL, TAMILNADU- 637211. Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:731 MFA No. 1467 of 2023 2. THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT IX, MITHRA TOWERS, 10/4, KASTURBA ROAD, BENGALURU-01. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KOUSALYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.11.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.4158/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-14), 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 DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:731 MFA No. 1467 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Jagadeesh H.T., learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Ms.Kousalya, who represents Sri.Ravish Benni, learned counsel on record for respondent No.2. 2. The appellant, who admittedly sustained a grievous injury in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2019 filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- in total. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, which dealt with the case as MVC No.4158/2019 rendered orders on 09.11.2021 holding that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.8,97,900/- as compensation. Projecting that he is entitled to a higher sum, the present appeal is filed. 3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was a driver by profession. He was earning Rs.20,000/- per month through his profession. The appellant produced his driving licence also before the tribunal to establish his occupation. But, without considering the occupation of the appellant, the tribunal took the notional income as Rs.10,000/- per month only. Learned counsel also states that even if the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taken into consideration, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:731 MFA No. 1467 of 2023 notional income has to be taken as Rs.14,000/- per month. Learned counsel also contends that the physical disability in respect of right lower limb as assessed by PW2 is 52% and in respect of whole body it is 26%. However, the tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 18% only and thereby awarded very meager sum as compensation under the head loss of future earnings. Learned counsel also states that the compensation that is granted by the tribunal under all other heads is also on lower side. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement in compensation. 4. On the other hand learned counsel who represents respondent No.2 submits that PW2 is not a doctor who treated the appellant. Having considered the nature of injury sustained and the totality of evidence produced, the tribunal rightly assessed the disability in respect of whole body as 18%, which needs no interference. 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained compound fracture of tibia and fibula of right lower limb with near total amputation of right mid foot. Also it is not in dispute that the appellant took treatment as inpatient for a period of 24 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:731 MFA No. 1467 of 2023 days. The tribunal discussing at length with regard to the merits of the matter, held that the disability in respect of whole body can be taken as 18%. This Court does not find any grounds for interference in that regard. 6. Coming to the occupation and earnings of the appellant as on the date of accident, the appellant failed to produce any substantive proof with regard to his occupation. However, as sought for by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court intends to take the notional income of the appellant as Rs.14,000/- per month which figure is considered by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the relevant period for settlement of claims. 7. Having considered the fact that the appellant is left with disability of 18% in respect of whole body and as the appellant who was aged around 23 years as on the date of accident is required to lead his entire life with such disability and to continue his occupation with the same disability, this Court is of the view that future prospects are required to be added. Considering the age of the appellant as 23 years by the date of accident, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:731 MFA No. 1467 of 2023 in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% is required to be added as future prospects. Also the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '18'. Therefore, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive under the head 'loss of future earnings' is as under: Description Amount Rs. Notional monthly income 14,000-00 Annual income (14,000 x 12) 1,68,000-00 Add 40% towards future prospects(1,68,000+40%) 2,35,200-00 On applying the appropriate multiplier '18'(2,35,200x18) 42,33,600-00 Loss of future earnings, permanent physical disability in respect of whole body being 18% 07,62,048-00 Thus, it is clear that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.7,62,048/- towards loss of future earnings. 8. The tribunal granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- only towards loss of income during the period of treatment. However, having considered the nature of injury sustained, this Court is of the view that the appellant could not have attended - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:731 MFA No. 1467 of 2023 his normal pursuits at least for a period of five months. Thus, loss of earnings during laid up period comes to Rs.70,000/- (14,000/- x 5). 9. Also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive justifiably under each head is as under: Sl. No Heads of compensation Amount in Rs. 1 Compensation for pain and suffering 50,000-00 2 Towards food, extra nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges 20,000-00 3 Medical expenses 04,19,100-00 4 Loss of income during laid up period 70,000-00 5 Loss of future earnings 07,62,048-00 6 Loss of amenities in life 30,000-00 7 Future medical expenses 10,000-00 Total Compensation 13,61,148-00 10. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,97,900/- only as compensation. But, the discussion that went on supra makes it clear that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.13,61,148/- as compensation. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:731 MFA No. 1467 of 2023 ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore through orders in MVC No.4158/2019 dated 09.11.2021 is enhanced from Rs.8,97,900/- to Rs.13,61,148/-. iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit except for the period of delay of 258 days as per orders in IA No.1/2023. iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE AP CT:TSM, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10