- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13736 M.F.A. No.2338/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2338/2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. S. SOMU S/O SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT 468, VASTHI KENDRA BLOCK-18, VIVEKANANDA SANKEERNA J P NAGAR, BANGALORE-78. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD NO.672, 1ST FLOOR, 11TH MAIN ROAD 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE 11. 2. MR. NANDISH KUMAR .N S/O NAGARAJ NO.1/188, NERALAGIRI VILALGE NERALAGIRI POST KRISHNAGIRI TALUK AND DISTRICT TAMIL NADU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RENUKA H.R. ADV., FOR R1 V/O/DTD:04.01.2024 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13736 M.F.A. No.2338/2020 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.4070/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU C/C XXII, ASCJ, ACMM, BENGALURU (SCCH-24), 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 MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the injured appellant seeking for higher compensation challenging the judgment and award dated 25.11.2019 passed in MVC.No.4070/2018 by the IX Additional Small Causes & C/c XXII ASCJ and Member MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-24), (for short 'Tribunal'). 2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. Sri.Shripad V. Shastry, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13736 M.F.A. No.2338/2020 erred in not awarding any compensation towards the loss of 55 days leave availed by the appellant for undergoing treatment. It is submitted that PW2 has clearly deposed that the appellant is required to undergo another surgery and that the cost of such surgery would be between Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. However, no compensation has been awarded under the said head. It is further submitted that the doctor has assessed the disability at 10% to the whole body and considering the said disability and the nature of treatment provided, the compensation awarded under other heads is required to be reassessed by awarding some global compensation towards disability, as the appellant is an employee working in the Food Corporation of India (FCI). Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 4. Per contra, Sri.Renuka H.R., learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposing the appeal submits that the award of compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability does not arise, as the appellant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13736 M.F.A. No.2338/2020 has continued his employment. It is submitted that insofar as the claim for loss of leave is concerned, absolutely no evidence was placed before the Tribunal except the sanction order at Ex.P13. Hence, the Court cannot presume such loss and award compensation on that basis. It is further submitted that the award of compensation by the Tribunal under the other heads is just and proper and more particularly, the amount awarded under the head of loss of amenities is on the higher side. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 5. I have heard the arguments on both the sides and perused the material available on record. 6. It is not in dispute between the parties that the appellant met with a road accident on 04.07.2018 and was provided treatment at Jayanagar Orthopedic Center, Bengaluru. He was admitted as an inpatient for nearly 4 days from 06.07.2018 to 09.07.2018. Prior to the said admission, he had visited the hospital once. As per the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13736 M.F.A. No.2338/2020 assessment of disability by PW2, the appellant has sustained disability to the extent of 10% to the whole body. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence on record, has held that the appellant has not lost his employment due to the accidental injuries and therefore, he is not entitled for any compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability. The said finding is in consonance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is based on the evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference. 7. Insofar as the contention with regard to the loss of leave of the appellant for 55 days is concerned, the Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that in view of the injuries sustained by the appellant, his vocation/employment was not affected. It is also observed that no evidence was placed on record to substantiate that due to the injuries, the appellant has suffered any pecuniary damages. In my considered view, the said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13736 M.F.A. No.2338/2020 finding is in consonance with the evidence available on record. 8. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 is right in her submission that the appellant except producing Ex.P13 has not placed any document before the Tribunal to substantiate the fact that the appellant has applied for leave and leave was granted for 55 days and that he did not receive salary of the said period. In the absence of such material particulars before the Tribunal, I am of the considered view that the appellant is not entitled to any compensation under the said head. Admittedly, the appellant has not lost his employment due to the accident; hence, the award of any compensation under the head of loss of income due to disability does not arise. Accordingly, the said contention is rejected. 9. Taking note of the nature of injuries suffered, the disability assessed by PW2 and the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal, I am of the view that the appellant is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13736 M.F.A. No.2338/2020 entitled to some enhancement of compensation under certain heads. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of special diet, conveyance and attendant charges in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Similarly, the appellant is also entitled to an additional sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. Thus, the appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.30,000/- in total, over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The additional compensation amount of Rs.30,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 11. In modification of the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal to the above extent, the appeal stands partly allowed. The respondent/insurer shall - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13736 M.F.A. No.2338/2020 deposit the additional compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the same shall be released in favour of the appellant. Registry to draw modified award accordingly Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19