- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:450 MFA No. 3087 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3087 OF 2022(MV-I) BETWEEN: NAGESHA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O YALAKKIGOWDA, R/O MELAGODU DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573 201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAKASHA H. C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RANGAMMA, W/O RAMESHA, MAJOR R/O MELAGODU VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573 201 (OWENR OF TRACTOR BEARING NO.KA.13.TB.3987) 2. THE MANAGER, IFCO TOKYO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 3RD FLOOR, LALBAGH TOWER, BALLA BAGH, M.G.ROAD, MANGALURU-5757 001. REP BY THE MANAGER, IFCO TOKYO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, HASSAN-573 201. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:450 MFA No. 3087 of 2022 (BY SMT. MAMATHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/C/O DATED 12.04.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1499/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, HASSAN, 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 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Prakash.H.C learned counsel for the appellant as well as Ms.Mamatha who represents Sri.E.I.Sanmathi learned counsel on record for respondent No.2. 2. Challenge in this appeal is the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan in MVC No.1499/2015 dated 06.02.2017. This is a claimant's appeal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:450 MFA No. 3087 of 2022 3. Arguing on merits of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant sustained fracture of both bones of right leg and took treatment as inpatient for a considerable period. The appellant who was an agriculturalist as on the date of accident could not recover for a long period. The fracture left him with disability. PW2 assessed the disability as 25% in respect of right lower limb. However, the Tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 8%. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant being an agriculturalist is unable to attend his work and he is unable to conduct agricultural activities as before and therefore, the disability in respect of whole body is required to be taken as 25%. 4. Learned counsel also submits that the Tribunal failed to award any compensation for the loss the appellant sustained due to non-attendance to his agricultural work during laid up period. Learned counsel also states that the Tribunal took the notional income of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:450 MFA No. 3087 of 2022 the appellant as ₹7,000/- per month though the appellant was earning ₹15,000/- per month as on the date of accident. Learned counsel states that the accident occurred in the year 2015 and for the relevant period the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income as ₹9,000/- per month and at least said figure should have been considered by the Tribunal. Learned counsel also states that the compensation that is granted under all other heads is on lower side. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement in compensation. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 though did not raise any serious objection regarding the notional income to be taken as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant and award of compensation for loss which the appellant sustained during laid up period, yet learned counsel states that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is justifiable. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:450 MFA No. 3087 of 2022 6. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained fracture of both bones of right leg. Also it is not in dispute that as per the evidence of PW2, the disability in respect of right lower limb is 25%. The Tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 8%. However, considering the fact that the appellant is an agriculturalist by profession aged around 49 years as on the date of accident which is a right age to conduct vigorous agricultural activities and earn, this Court is of the view that the disability in respect of whole body can be taken as 10%. Also this Court considers desirable to take the notional income as ₹9,000/- per month. Thus, taking the notional income as ₹9,000/- per month, the disability in respect of whole body as 10% and applying the appropriate multiplier '13', the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive towards loss of future earnings comes to ₹1,40,400/- (₹9,000/-x12x13x10%). However, the Tribunal granted a sum of ₹87,360/- only under the head loss of future income. Thus, the appellant is entitled to an additional - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:450 MFA No. 3087 of 2022 sum of ₹53,040/- (₹1,40,400/- - ₹87,360/-) towards loss of future income. 7. As rightly contented, the Tribunal failed to award any compensation towards loss which the appellant would have sustained due to absence of earnings during laid up period. Having considered the nature of injury sustained, this Court is of the view that the appellant would have taken bed rest at least for a period of three months. Thus loss of earnings during laid up period comes to ₹27,000/- (₹9,000/- X 3). 8. The compensation that is granted by the Tribunal under all other heads is justifiable. Therefore, the total compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive in addition to the sum that is awarded by the Tribunal is ₹80,040/- (₹53,040/-+ ₹27,000/-). Therefore, the appeal is disposed with the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:450 MFA No. 3087 of 2022 ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan in MVC No.1499/2015 dated 06.02.2017 is enhanced by ₹80,040/-. (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 1,077 days as per orders in I.A.No. 1/2022. (iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of 8 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 DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28