- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8321 MFA No. 5410 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5410 OF 2025(MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI KRISHNA NAYAK S/O ADENAIK, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.77, NADIMITHANDA, GAURIBIDANUR TALUK, CHOLASETTYHALLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE - 561 209. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAGADEESH H.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI JANARDHAN S/O SOORAPPA, MAJOR, R/AT NO.142, 1ST FLOOR, 6TH CROSSVIKAR, AMDITHYA ROAD, LAKSHMIPURA, BANGALORE - 560 006. 2. THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT IX, MITHRA TOWERS, 10/4, KASTURBA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8321 MFA No. 5410 of 2025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 22.09.2025 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.06.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO.2511/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, M.A.C.T., BENGALURU (SCCH-8), 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 MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the arguments of both sides. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 11.06.2025 passed in MVC No.2511/2021, by the XII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, M.A.C.T., Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) seeking enhancement of compensation. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8321 MFA No. 5410 of 2025 3. The injured claimant met with an accident on 19.02.2021 and filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, awarded an amount of Rs.4,17,744/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant preferred an appeal and contended that the amounts granted under the other heads are meager. The loss of income during the laid-up period was granted for only two months, and he requested an enhancement of the compensation. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the doctor who assessed the disability was not the treating doctor. The claimant was hospitalized for a period of five days, and therefore, the Tribunal rightly considered the disability as 8%, which requires no interference. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8321 MFA No. 5410 of 2025 5. Though it was stated that the petitioner was a Zomato delivery boy earning Rs.20,000/- per month, he did not file any income proof. As the accident occurred in the year 2021, his notional income is to be taken as Rs.15,000/- per month. He was 40 years old, and the applicable multiplier is 15. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner sustained a comminuted fracture of the left olecranon. He is facing pain in his left elbow and is unable to lift weights or perform his routine activities. The doctor assessed the disability as 36% to the left arm and 12% to the whole body. However, the Tribunal observed that the doctor was not the treating doctor and assessed the disability at 8%. As per the evidence of PW2, the disability is to be calculated as 36 x 1/3rd, i.e., 12%. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to enhance the disability to 12% instead of 8%. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8321 MFA No. 5410 of 2025 7. The loss of future earning capacity is calculated as follows: Rs.15,000 x 12 x 15 x 12% = Rs.3,24,000/-. 8. Regarding medical expenses, the Tribunal granted Rs.46,744/- as per Exhibits P6 to P36, which is confirmed. The petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 5 days. Considering the nature of injuries, the duration of hospitalization, and other relevant factors, this Court finds that the amount stated under other heads is reasonable and needs no interference. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner could not have attended any work for at least a period of three months. Therefore, Rs.45,000/- is to be granted under the head of "loss of income during the laid- up period." The petitioner is also entitled to Rs.30,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment, and attendant charges. The amounts granted by the Tribunal under the other heads are confirmed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8321 MFA No. 5410 of 2025 10. Therefore, the total compensation is calculated as follows: 11. The compensation is enhanced from Rs.4,17,744/- to Rs.5,65,744/-, resulting in an enhancement of Rs.1,48,000/-. 12. The insurance company has already deposited the awarded amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,48,000/- with interest at the rate of Particulars Amount in Rs. Loss of future earning capacity 3,24,000.00 Pain and suffering 54,000.00 Loss of amenities 40,000.00 Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges 30,000.00 Loss of income during laid up period 41,000.00 Future medical expenses 30,000.00 Medical Bills 46,744.00 Total 5,64,744.00 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8321 MFA No. 5410 of 2025 6% per annum within one month from the date of this order. 13. Rider of motor cycle has no valid driving licence and hence the Tribunal fastened the entire liability on the owner of the vehicle. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PAPPU AND OTHERS. VS. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER reported in (2018)3 SCC 208 this Court finds it reasonable to invoke pay and recovery. Respondent No.1/insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,48,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. within one month from the date of this order. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it. The insurance company is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63