- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1105 MFA No. 4899 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4899 OF 2021(MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. SHIVARAM N. NAIK, S/O. NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO 124/9, ALWE ROAD, SHIRALI, UTTARA KANNADA DIST- 581354 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.V. NAIK.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ROHINI PRASHANTH, W/O PRASHNATH B, NO 26, BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE, MANDUR POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560049. RC OWNER OF TEMPO TRAVELLER, BEARING NO KA-01-AA-8856. Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1105 MFA No. 4899 of 2021 2. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVANA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, NEAR HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560027 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. ARUN PONNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.5007/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE, ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (SCCH-13), 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:1105 MFA No. 4899 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.K.V.Naik learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.M.Arun Ponnappa learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Challenge in this appeal is the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in MVC No.5007/2018 dated 17.04.2021. This is a claimant's appeal. 3. On the ground that he sustained a grievous injury in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2018, the appellant filed a petition claiming compensation of ₹10,00,000/- in total. The Tribunal through the impugned order held that the appellant is entitled to a sum of ₹2,11,000/- as compensation. Dissatisfied with the sum thus awarded, present appeal is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant sustained a grievous injury and due to the said injury, he became permanently and completely - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1105 MFA No. 4899 of 2021 disabled. Learned counsel also states that though the appellant underwent a surgery, he did not attain normalcy. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant produced evidence of PW3, who assessed the disability. PW3 stated in clear terms that the disability in respect of right lower limb is 43% and in respect of whole body is 15%. Appellant also produced the evidence of PW4 to establish that he was working as cook as on the date of accident and was earning ₹25,000/- per month. But the Tribunal without considering the evidence thus produced, awarded very meagre sum as compensation. Learned counsel states that no amount is awarded towards loss of future earnings at all. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement in compensation. 5. Vehemently opposing the submission thus made, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that PW3 is not a doctor who treated the appellant. PW3 during the course of cross-examination clearly admitted that he did not look into the contents of the case sheet before - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1105 MFA No. 4899 of 2021 assessing the disability and likewise, he did not observe the contents of the wound certificate. Learned counsel thereby states that the evidence of PW3 has to be discarded in total. Learned counsel also states that as per the evidence of PW3, fracture is united and thus, the appellant does not suffer with any kind of disability. 6. Indicating the basis on which he assessed the disability and stating that the appellant was examined clinically, radiologically and the assessment was done as per the notification issued by the Central Government, PW3 stated that the physical disability in respect of right lower limb is 43% and in respect of whole body is 15%. The Tribunal discussing the evidence of PW3, at para 17 of the order held that the disability in respect of whole body can be considered to be 12%. Having held thus, the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation for loss of earnings due to such disability. However, the Tribunal did not do so. Respondent No.2 did not challenge any of the findings of the Tribunal. That apart, the assessment of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1105 MFA No. 4899 of 2021 Tribunal that the disability in respect of whole body can be considered to be 12% is reasonable. 7. Coming to occupation and earnings of the appellant as on the date of accident, considering the evidence of PW4 the Tribunal took the earnings of the appellant as Rs.11,000/- per month notionally. The accident occurred in the year 2018. For the relevant period for settlement of claims the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income as Rs.12,500/- per month. Therefore, this Court considers desirable to take the notional income of the appellant as Rs.12,500/ per month. 8. It is not in dispute that the appellant was aged around 34 years by the date of accident. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier to be applied as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009 SAR (Civ) 592, is '16'. Hence, taking the notional income of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1105 MFA No. 4899 of 2021 appellant as Rs.12,500/- per month, the disability in respect of whole body as 12% and applying the appropriate multiplier '16', the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive towards loss of future earnings comes to Rs.2,88,000/- (12,500/- x 12 x 16 x 12%). 9. Though learned counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation that is granted by the Tribunal under all other heads is on lower side, this Court is of the view that the compensation that is granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Therefore, this Court ultimately holds that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,88,000/- only in addition to the sum that is awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1105 MFA No. 4899 of 2021 orders in MVC No.5007/2018 dated 17.04.2021 is enhanced by Rs.2,88,000/-. 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 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 DS,AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl. No.:31