- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20598 MFA No. 6025 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6025 OF 2024 (MV-I) BETWEEN: D A VENKATESH @ VENKATESH S/O D V A SHARMA, NOW AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 520, 2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU – 560 066. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA N, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUSHMITHA G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR A G SRINIVAS REDDY S/O A GURUVA REDDY, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT, NO. 23/3, 4TH BLOCK, KSRTC NEW QUARTERS, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 041. 2. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, J P AND DEVI JAMBUKESHWAR, ARCADE, NO. 69, MILLER’S ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 052 REP. BY ITS MANAGER. Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20598 MFA No. 6025 of 2024 …RESPONDENTS (BY DR. J.S. HALASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2, V.O DATED 05.01.2026 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.03.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.3647/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-14, 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 This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 05.03.2024 passed in MVC No.3647/2020, by Member MACT, XVI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru for enhancing the compensation. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20598 MFA No. 6025 of 2024 3. Injured claimant met with an accident on 01.07.2020 and filed claim petition, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted Rs.5,45,110/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an appeal and mainly contended that he sustained fracture injuries which are grievous in nature. He also examined PW2/Neurosurgeon and he assessed the disability as 42% to the head injury and he examined PW3/Orthopedic Surgeon and he assessed 33% disability to the right upper limb and 11% to the whole body. But the Tribunal erred in taking the disability as 14%. The amounts granted by the Tribunal under other heads are meager, therefore requested for enhancement of the compensation. 5. Learned counsel for respondent stated that the tribunal gave proper reasons for assessing the disability as 14%. The tribunal observed that PW2 is not a treated doctor and the brain injuries are healed and he was treated conservatively. The petitioner himself admitted that he has not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20598 MFA No. 6025 of 2024 taken any further treatment after the discharge and thus Tribunal rightly considered the disability as 14% and it is to be confirmed. 6. Though the petitioner stated that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month working as a mason, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2020, Tribunal has rightly considered his notional income as Rs.14,500/- per month as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and it is confirmed. Petitioner was aged 52 years and the relevant multiplier to be taken is ‘11’. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate. Ex.P14 is a Neuropsychological Assessment Report. Ex.P21 is a Disability Assessment Report. Petitioner examined Senior Consultant in Neurosurgeon as PW2 and he stated that the petitioner sustained injury to head, face and chest. He had no h/o loss of consciousness, vomiting and ENT bleed after the accident. The CT scan of head shows the following injuries; 1. Encephalomalacic changes in Bilateral basifrontal and temporal regions. 2. Multiple skull and facial bone fractures. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20598 MFA No. 6025 of 2024 7. Further stated that he was managed conservatively for traumatic brain and chest injury. He was managed in ICU with analgesics, antibiotics, PPI, cerebral antioedemameasures and neuroprotectives. He had right haemopneumothorax for which right ICD tube was inserted. He was gradually improved neurologically and later shifted to ward. He was given regular physiotherapy during hospitalization, he himself stated that he has not treated the petitioner and he has no personal knowledge about the petitioner. But he gave evidence basing on the record. He has seen the petitioner 3 years after the traumatic brain injury. The petitioner complained the following aspects, 1. Memory loss, forgets things-forgets names, conversations and difficult to identify and recognize people, 2. Gets angry easily, behavioral problems, 3. Giddiness-difficult to go outside in the sunlight, 4. Gets irritated with loud noise or sounds, 5. Generalized weakness of body and 6. Not able to do work/job as before the accident. On examination, patient is conscious, obeys commands, higher mental functions and memory is impaired. His MMSE score is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20598 MFA No. 6025 of 2024 20 (normal is 30). MRI scan of brain done on 26.06.2023 shows that all brain injuries are healed with Gliotic changes in the brain permanent brain scarring due to prior trauma. He underwent detailed neuropsychological evaluation by the psychologist. Thus considering the said report, he assessed the disability of combined neurobehavioral and cognitive disability as 41.77% and he would find that there is permanent physical impairment of 42% to the head injury. The petitioner also examined orthopedic surgeon as PW3. He was treated conservatively for malnutrition, and there was tenderness over right clavicle. United right clavicle and scapula fractured. Petitioner has pain over right clavicle and restricted arm and leg fractured and the disability is 11% to the whole body. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the disability assessed by the neurosurgeon was not at all considered by the tribunal. The Tribunal further observed that PW1 was cross-examined before the court. Petitioner has examined two doctors and the expert evidence is to be relied upon. Considering the medical evidence and also the fact that PW1 himself was examined before the court and the fact that he has stated that he has not taken further treatment after - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20598 MFA No. 6025 of 2024 discharge, this court finds it reasonable to take the disability as 25% for the purpose of calculation. As the disability is more than 20%, he is entitled for future prospectus, as per the citation reported in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Abdul S/o Mehaboob Tahasildar & Another in MFA No.103807/2016 (MV). The age of the petitioner was 52 years, therefore, he is entitled for 10% towards loss of future prospects. Therefore, the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.14,500 + 10% x 12 x 11 x 25% = Rs.5,26,350/-. As per Ex.P8 and Ex.P9, the Tribunal granted Rs.1,53,110/- towards medical expenses and the said amount is confirmed. He was admitted in the hospital for a period of 11 days. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalisation and other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.60,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.30,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Petitioner might not have attended any other work at least for period of 3 months and therefore Rs. 14,500 x 3= Rs.43,500 towards loss of income during laid up period. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20598 MFA No. 6025 of 2024 9. Thus in all, components awarded by this court are as below, Hence, the compensation granted by tribunal is enhanced from Rs.5,45,110/- to Rs.8,42,960/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 10. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 05.03.2024 passed in MVC No.3647/2020 by Member Sl.Nos. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 Loss of future income 5,26,350 2 Pain and suffering 60,000 3 Loss of amenities 30,000 4 Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. 30,000 5 Loss of income during laid down period 43,500 6 Medical expenses 1,53,110 Total 8,42,960 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20598 MFA No. 6025 of 2024 MACT, XVI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, is modified. iii. The claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.8,42,960/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.5,45,110/- granted by the tribunal. iv. Respondent/Insurance Company has already deposited the awarded amount before the tribunal. Therefore, respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,97,850/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within 8 weeks from the date of this order. v. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53