- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4609 MFA No. 2194 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2194 OF 2021(MV-I) BETWEEN: SMT. RAMADEVI N. W/O. SURESH BABU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT SITE NO.60 NEAR ASHOK SCHOOL ANNAPOORNESHWARI LAYOUT GUNI AGRAHARA BENGALURU-560 018 …APPELLANT (BY SRI RAGHU R., ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC DEPOT., K. H. ROAD SHANTHINAGAR Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4609 MFA No. 2194 of 2021 BENGALURU-560 027 (RC OWNER OF KSRTC BUS BEARING NO.KA-57-F-0222) …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SAHANA M., ADVOCATE FOR; SRI RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF M.V. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.12.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.480/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE VII-ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM., MEMBER, MACT-3, BENGALURU, 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 DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4609 MFA No. 2194 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Raghu R., learned counsel for the appellant as well as Ms.Sahana M., who represents Sri.Rajashekar S., learned counsel on record for respondent. 2. Challenge in this appeal is the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.480/2018 dated 13.12.2019. This is a claimant's appeal. 3. Arguing on merits of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, appellant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2017. Though the appellant took extensive treatment, she is left with neurological disability of 43%. Appellant produced sufficient evidence both oral and documentary to substantiate her version in respect of disability. However, the tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 10% unjustifiably. Learned counsel also states that the compensation granted by the tribunal under all heads is on lower side. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submits that respondent satisfied the award and the appellant withdrew the money without raising any protest. Learned - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4609 MFA No. 2194 of 2021 counsel also states that the compensation that is granted by the tribunal is highly justifiable and therefore, appeal is not maintainable. 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained fracture of right temporal bone and also intra croniel hemorrhages subdual and sub trochonoid parietal and temporal region. Considering the points that were elicited during the cross-examination of PW2 and also taking into consideration the fact that the appellant examined herself as PW1, gave evidence comfortably and without any difficulty, the tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 10% which needs no interference. 6. So far as the income and earnings of the appellant as on the date of accident, as per her version by doing tailoring and embroidery work she was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The tribunal took the notional income of the appellant as Rs.8,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accident occurred in the year 2017 and for the relevant period the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income as Rs.11,000/- per month for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4609 MFA No. 2194 of 2021 settlement of claims and at-least said figure should have been adopted by the tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondent raised no objection for taking the notional income as Rs.11,000/- per month. 7. Having considered justification in the submission that is made by learned counsel for the appellant, notional income of the appellant is taken as Rs.11,000/- per month. Taking the notional income as Rs.11,000/- per month and without disturbing other parameters i.e. application of appropriate multiplier '14' and disability in respect of whole body as 10%, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive towards loss of future earnings comes to Rs.1,84,800/- (11,000/- x 12 x 14 x 10%). 8. Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- only towards loss of income during laid up period. However, having considered the nature of injuries sustained, this Court is of the view that the appellant could not have attended her normal pursuits atleast for a period of three months. Thus, loss of earnings during laid up period comes to Rs.33,000/- (11,000/- x 3). - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4609 MFA No. 2194 of 2021 9. Also considering the totality of evidence produced, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive under different heads is as under: Sl. No Heads of compensation Amount in Rs. 1 Towards pain and suffering 25,000-00 2 Medical expenses 58,114-00 3 Towards food, extra nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges 15,000-00 4 Loss of future earnings 1,84,800-00 5 Loss of income during laid up period 33,000-00 6 Loss of amenities in life 10,000-00 Total 3,25,914-00 10. Thus, it is clear that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,25,914/- as compensation. However, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,21,514/- only. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, through orders in MVC No.480/2018 dated 13.12.2019 is enhanced from Rs.2,21,514/- to Rs.3,25,914/-. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4609 MFA No. 2194 of 2021 iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. iv) Respondent 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, appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE AP CT:VC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31