- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:253 MFA No. 3645 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3645 OF 2021(MV-I) BETWEEN: DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC CHAMARAJANAGAR DIVISION, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY CENTRAL OFFICE: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B. S., ADVOCATE (VC)) AND: SMT. SANTHA, D/O APPUKUTTY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, KOOTTALAMKUNNU HOUSE, KONGAD, KONGAD - 1 KONGAD PALAKKAD, KERALA - 678 631. PRESENTLY R/AT AMAL NO.001, S V REGENCY, RING ROAD, HINKAL, MYSORE - 570 001. …RESPONDENT (SERVED-UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.01.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1278/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:253 MFA No. 3645 of 2021 MACT, NANAJANGUD, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,73,715/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. ON 3,92,200/- FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.B.S.Karthikeyan, who appears through video conference and represents the appellant. 2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanjangud, in MVC No.1278/2017 dated 08.01.2021. 3. Though notice was served upon the respondent, respondent has not chosen to contest the matter. 4. On the ground that she sustained grievous injury in a road traffic accident and became permanently and completely disabled, the respondent filed a petition claiming compensation. The Tribunal through the impugned order held that the respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs.6,73,715/- as compensation. The appellant against whom the liability is fastened is before this Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:253 MFA No. 3645 of 2021 5. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant states that the compensation granted is exorbitant and excessive. Learned counsel submits that the appellant is aggrieved only by the percentage of disability assessed by the tribunal. Learned counsel submits that as per the evidence of PW2, the respondent suffers with disability of 70% in respect of right upper limb. However, the tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 60%. Learned counsel submits that the tribunal ought to have taken 1/3rd of 70% as whole body disability. Learned counsel thereby seeks to reduce the sum that is awarded as compensation towards loss of future earnings. 6. It is not in dispute that the respondent was working as house maid as on the date of accident. Equally it is not in dispute that due to the accident there was traumatic amputation upto upper 1/3rd of right upper limb. A human being of any gender who loses his/her right upper limb will not be in a position to attend any work which can be done with the upper limbs for eking out the livelihood. Here is a case where the respondent/claimant aged about 63 years working as house maid lost her right upper limb upto 1/3rd. Therefore, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:253 MFA No. 3645 of 2021 undoubtedly she will not be in a position either to attend her normal pursuits on her own as before or attend her work as house maid. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal did not err in taking disability in respect of whole body as 60% and ultimately awarding compensation of Rs.3,02,400/- towards loss of future income. Thus, this Court is of the view that there are no merits in the appeal. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50