- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13776 MFA No. 1992 of 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. 1992 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: CHUNCHEGOWDA S/O LATE KARIGOWDA AGED 52 YEARS R/O TUBUNAKERE VILLAGE KOTHATHI HOBLI MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 436. …APPELLANT (BY SRI PRAMOD R, ADV.) AND: 1. NANJUNDAIAH H.S S/O SHANKARALINGEGOWDA AGED MAJOR R/ONO.163, BOOTHANA HOSURU VILALGE, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 436. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE LIMITED NO.1119/B, KAMBLI BUILDING, ASHOKANAGAR, M.C. ROAD MANDYA - 571 436. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.C. LOKESHMARI, ADV., FOR R-2; V/O DTD:22.06.2023 NOTICE TO R-1 IS D/W) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THEJUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.10.12.2018 IN MVC NO.778/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MANDYA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13776 MFA No. 1992 of 2020 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 claimant seeking enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 10.12.2018 passed in MVC No.778/2017 by the Court of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Mandya, (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. Sri Pramod.R., learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income and disability of the claimant. The award of compensation on all other heads is also contrary to the evidence on record. It is submitted that the appellant had examined the doctor, who had treated the appellant through Court Commissioner, whose evidence has been appreciated by the Tribunal in paragraph nos.16 & 17 of the judgment. However, the Tribunal has - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13776 MFA No. 1992 of 2020 awarded less compensation. Hence, he seeks to re-appreciate the evidence and enhance the compensation appropriately by allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra, Smt. H.C.Lokeshwari, learned counsel for respondent No.2, vehemently opposes the appeal and submits that the Tribunal has assessed the disability to the whole body and considering the fact that the appellant had sustained two fractures to his right leg, the assessment of disability is correct. It is submitted that the award of compensation on all other heads is just and proper and needs no interefernce. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the appeal. 5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. 6. The only point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is : "Whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal calls for any interference?" - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13776 MFA No. 1992 of 2020 7. The parties to the proceedings do not dispute that in a road accident dated 16.03.2016 the appellant had sustained injuries, hence had filed the claim petition seeking for compensation. The records indicate that the appellant sustained the following injuries as per Ex.P-7. a) Abrasion over right fore arm of 5 x 2 cm. b) Swelling over right leg medial aspect of 5 x 6 cm. c) Abrasion over right foot. d) X-ray right leg + comminuted fracture of bone bones of right leg m3/L3. 8. It is also not in dispute that the appellant was inpatient for a period of 11 days and underwent surgery which is evident from the discharge summary at Ex.P-12. Considering the nature of treatment provided and deposition of CW-1, I am of the considered opinion that assessment of disability is required to be enhanced to 9% for the purpose of determining the compensation. It has to be noticed that the appellant was aged about 50 years at the time of accident and hence, the appropriate multiplier would be 13. In so far as the income is concerned, it is noticed that the appellant is an agriculturist and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13776 MFA No. 1992 of 2020 considering the same, in the absence of proof of income, this Court has adopted the notional income at the rate of Rs.9,500/- per month as per the chart prepared by the KSLSA. Having re- assessed the disability and taking note of the nature of the treatment provided to the appellant and the income, the compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability is re-assessed as under: 9,500/- x 12 x 13 x 9% = 1,33,380/- However, taking note of the oral and documentary evidence, I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced appropriately as under: HEADS AMOUNT (in Rs.) Pain & suffering 50,000/- Medical bills 64,490/- Loss of income during laid up period 28,500/- Loss of future income due to disability 1,33,380/- Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and nourishment and attendant charges 25,000/- Physical disability affecting future amenities 30,000/- Total 3,31,370/- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13776 MFA No. 1992 of 2020 Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,31,370/- as against Rs.1,99,690/- awarded by the Tribunal. 9. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER a) Appeal is allowed in part. b) The impugned judgment and award dated 10.12.2018 passed by the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the appellant- claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,31,370/- as against Rs.1,99,690/- awarded by the Tribunal. c) The enhanced compensation shall carry at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. d) The respondent No.2 shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13776 MFA No. 1992 of 2020 e) The rest of the judgment and award of the Tribunal with respect to apportionment, deposit and release shall remain unaltered. f) Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE KK