HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20812 MFA No. 7036 of 2018 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7036 OF 2018(MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. ABHISHEK.M.JAIN S/O MEGHARAJ JAIN, NOW AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT NO.U12, NEW NO.28, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, 5TH MAIN, NEAR HARICHANDRA GHAT, MARUTHI EXTENSION, SRIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU-560 021. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RAMANA REDDY.E FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.10, BEHIND SANDHYA TENT, OLD MADIVALA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 068. 2. LIBERTY VIDEOCON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.1 ALYSSA, 1ST FLOOR, NEAR PORTION, OLD NO.28, NEW NO.23, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI.S.SAMPRATHI., ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH V/O/DTD:13.10.2022) HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20812 MFA No. 7036 of 2018 2 THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14/02/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.4916/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ACMM & XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, (SCCH-25), BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal seeks to challenge the Judgment and Award dated 14.02.2018, in M.V.C.No.4916/2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’). By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,64,400/- to the appellant/claimant along with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. 2. Given the pendency of this appeal for eight years, it is apposite to hear and decide this appeal finally. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20812 MFA No. 7036 of 2018 3 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Notice to respondent No.1 has been dispensed with, by an order dated 13.10.2022. 4. The brief facts are that the appellant/claimant was riding his motorcycle on 30.10.2015 and at around 12.30 p.m., a BBMP garbage lorry bearing Registration number KA-01-AA-1839 driven at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner collided with the motorcycle of the appellant. As a result of which, the appellant/claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted to St. John's Hospital, Bangalore and thereafter was referred to Apollo Hospital, Jayanagar, where he was treated as an inpatient from 30.10.2015 to 25.11.2015. The appellant also underwent multiple surgeries and was advised bed rest. In view of the injuries sustained, a claim petition was filed before the Tribunal. The claim was contested by the respondent No.1/owner as well as the respondent No.2/Insurance Company. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20812 MFA No. 7036 of 2018 4 5. Based on the pleadings between the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal: “ISSUES 1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, he has sustained injuries on account of road traffic accident took place on Madivala Market Road, in front of 4th KSRP Battalian Gate, Madivala, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01-AA-1839, date 30.10.2015 at about 12.30 p.m. as alleged in the petition? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom payable? 3. What order or award?” 6. The appellant examined himself as PW-1 and got marked 32 documents as Exhibits P1 to P32. He got examined two Doctors in support of his claim as PW-2 and PW-3. Respondents neither examined any witnesses nor produced any documents on their behalf. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal found that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the owner of the offending vehicle, as well as that the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20812 MFA No. 7036 of 2018 5 appellant is entitled to the following amounts as compensation: Sl.No. Heads of Compensation Amount (in Rs.) 1 Pain and suffering 50,000/- 2 Medical expenses 12,02,880/- 3 Loss of future income 2,76,480/- 4 Loss of future amenities and happiness 15,000/- 5 Attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment charges 20,000/- TOTAL 15,64,360/- 6.1 Thus, an amount of Rs.15,64,360/-, along with interest at 8% per annum was awarded. 7. The challenge in the present appeal is on several grounds. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that in view of the accident, the appellant/claimant has suffered grievous injuries. Since he was run over by a lorry, learned counsel submits that he is permanently disabled and completely bed-ridden. In view of the fact that the appellant/claimant sustained grievous HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20812 MFA No. 7036 of 2018 6 injuries, learned counsel submits that the amounts as awarded under various heads including pain and suffering, loss of future income, loss of amenities as well as under other non-pecuniary heads, was on the lower side. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company on the other hand submits that the notional income of the appellant/claimant was wrongly taken as Rs.9,000/- per month. However, so far as the remaining heads of compensation are concerned, he contends there is no infirmity with the award of the Tribunal. 9. The question that arises for consideration before this Court is as follows: “Whether the appellant is entitled to any amount of enhanced compensation?” 10. At the outset, it is observed that the notional income for the year 2015 was Rs.9,000/- p.m. However, the amounts that have been calculated towards loss of future income has been calculated at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20812 MFA No. 7036 of 2018 7 month. Since the appellant was 19 years old, a multiplier of ‘18’ would be taken. The appellant has also produced the evidence of two Doctors. However, on the aspect of disability, the learned Tribunal has taken 16% disability to the whole body. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence on record reflected that the disability would be 20% in terms of movement and in terms of muscle strength evaluation. It is further stated that the stability component has been taken as 19% and using the formulas, the partial sensation over the right knee has been kept at 6% while the total loss over the right limb is at 31%. The Doctor has also found that the permanent physical disability to the whole body is at 20%. Thus, the contention of the appellant is that the disability was required to be taken as 20% and not 16%. 11. This Court has examined the evidence of PW-2 the concerned Doctor. The evidence reflects that PW-2 was his treating Doctor and the evidence also sets out the disability calculations in the following manner: HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20812 MFA No. 7036 of 2018 8 “9. Disability Calculations: 1) Mobility component – a) Range of Movements (ROM) b) Muscle strength. 2) Stability Component. 1) Mobility Component: a) Range of Movement: (ROM) Affected Joint: (L) Knee: - Mean loss of ROM of (L) Knee – 20% - Since knee constitutes 30% of the total mobility Arc of movement Normal ROM Active ROM Loss of ROM Loss in % Flexion – Extension 00–1250 00–1000 250 20% - Component of the lower limb, the loss of motion in relation to the lower limb will be 20 x 0.30 = 6%. - Range of movement to (R) limb = Normal = 0% (b) MUSCLE STRENGTH EVALUATION - Muscle strength of (L) hip is Grade IV – 20% - Muscle strength of (R) hip is Grade IV – 20% - Mean percentage of muscle strength loss around a joint, in relation to the (L) lower limb is 20 x 0.30 = 6% - Mean percentage of Muscle strength loss around a joint, in relation to the (R) lower limb is 20 x 0.30 = 6%. Combining values for mobility component: FOR LEFT LOWER LIMB: Loss of ROM = 6% = a Loss of muscle strength = 6% = b USING COMBINING FORMULA: = a+b (90-a)/90 = 6+6 90-6/90 = 6+6 84/90 = = 6 + 6 x 0.93 = 6 + 5.58 = 11.58 = 12% FOR RIGHT LOWER LIMB Loss of ROM = 0% = b Loss of muscle strength = 6% = a USING COMBINING FORMULA: = a + b 90-a/90 = 6+0 90-6/90 = 6 + 0 = 6% 2) STABILITY COMPONENT: 1) Walking on plain surface = Normal 2) Walking on slope = Difficult = 2% HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20812 MFA No. 7036 of 2018 9 3) Climbing stairs = Difficult = 2% 4) Standing on both legs = Normal 5) Standing on affected leg = Normal 6) Squatting on floor = Difficult = 6% 7) Sitting cross leg = Difficult = 5% 8) Kneeling = Difficult = 4% 9) Taking turns = Normal Total = 19% Combining loss of Mobility & Stability components: For Left lower limb: - Loss of Mobility = 12% = b - Loss of Stability = 19% = a Using Combining Formula:- = a + b 90-a/90 = 90-19/90 = 19 + 12 71/90 = = 19 + 12 x 0.79 = 19 + 9.5 = 28.5 =29% For Right Lower Limb: - Loss of mobility = 6% = b - Loss of stability = 9% = a Using Combining Formula: = a + b 90-a/90 = 19+6 90-6/90 = 19+ 6 84/90 = 19 + 6 x 0.93 = 19 + 5.6 = 24.6 = 25% Partial loss of sensation over medial aspect of (R) knee = 6%. So, the total loss over (R) limb = 25 + 6 = 31% 10. I have assessed the permanent physical disability to left lower limb as 29% and to right lower limb as 31% and to whole body as 20% (Orthopaedic disability).” 12. The learned Tribunal, after examining this aspect of the matter, found the whole-body disability to be at 16%. In addition, a contention has been raised qua ‘pain and suffering’ amounts to be enhanced. The learned Tribunal although has examined the Wound Certificate Exhibit P-7 and found that there were severe injuries and the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20812 MFA No. 7036 of 2018 10 appellant/claimant required to undergo surgeries and awarded Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering. 13. In view of the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant as observed by the learned Tribunal in the Impugned Award, this Court deems it apposite to enhance the award towards pain and suffering to Rs.1,00,000/-. 13.1. In addition, the loss of amenities would also be proportionately enhanced. The appellant/claimant has also contended that the future medical expenses have not been awarded and neither has income during the treatment period been awarded. In addition, it is contended that the appellant is completely disfigured and no amount has been awarded for his loss of disfigurement and the loss of marriage prospects. 14. Given the evidence produced qua the severity of injuries which are reflected in the Impugned Judgment, this Court deems it apposite to award compensation on HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20812 MFA No. 7036 of 2018 11 these grounds as well. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced in the following terms: Sl.No. Heads of Compensation Amount (in Rs.) 1 Pain and suffering 1,00,000/- 2 Medical expenses 12,02,880/- 3 Loss of future income (9000 x 20/100 x 12 x 18) 3,88,800/- 4 Loss of future amenities and happiness 50,000/- 5 Attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment charges 40,000/- 6 Loss of income during treatment period 27,000/- 7 Future medical expenses 20,000/- 8 Loss of marriage prospects 50,000/- TOTAL 18,78,680/- Less: Awarded by MACT 15,64,360/- Enhancement 3,14,320/- 15. Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.18,78,680/- along with interest at HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20812 MFA No. 7036 of 2018 12 8% p.a. as awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of realization. 16. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part; (ii) The Impugned Judgment and Award dated 14.02.2018 in MVC No.4916/2015 passed by the learned MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, is modified, to the extent that the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.3,14,320/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum in addition to Rs.15,64,360/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. (iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the learned Tribunal remains undisturbed. (iv) The respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation with HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20812 MFA No. 7036 of 2018 13 interest applicable thereon, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; (v) On such deposit of compensation, the same shall be released in favour of the appellant/claimant, on filing of an appropriate application by the appellant/claimant for withdrawal of the enhanced amount. (vi) The Registry is directed to draw the modified Award accordingly. (vii) The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. (viii) No order as to costs. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA