IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6925 OF 2023 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

VENKATESHA S/O LATE ANNAYA ALIAS ANNAIAH SHETTY, NOW AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT BEVINAHALLI, KRISHNARAJAPET, MANDYA, KARNATAKA - 571402 …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUSHMITHA G., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed

1. D VINODKUMAR by S/O DEVARAJ ANNAPURNA G MAJOR Location: HIGH RESIDING AT NO.22, 1^ST FLOOR COURT OF KARNATAKA RT LAYOUT, D/H NAVADEEP SCHOOL GAYATRI EXTENSION, K.R. PURAM BENGALURU- 560 036. 2. M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.141, SRI SHANTHI TOWERS, 5^TH FLOOR, 3^RD MAIN NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURINAGAR BENGALURU- 560 043.

REP. BY ITS MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. SHANKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 01.04.2025, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.03.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.291/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER AND MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-18), 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 UMESH M ADIGA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 25.05.2023 passed in MVC No.291/2022.

2. This matter is listed for admission and with the consent of learned advocates for both sides it is taken up for final disposal.

3. Parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

4. The brief facts of the case are that:

Petitioner met with an accident on 30.09.2021 at

9.30 p.m. on Hosur-Bengaluru road at National Highway No.7 at Hebbagodi, due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing Registration No.RJ-14-GC-7409. As a result, claimant sustained grievous injuries on his left leg and his left leg above the knee joint was amputated. He has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, prayed to award compensation.

5. Considering the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues, recorded the evidence and after hearing the arguments and after appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on record, held that accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the lorry and awarded following amount of compensation:

6. Tribunal taken income of the claimant as Rs.15,000/- per month, applied multiplier `13' taking his age as 44 years and assessed disability as 50% as stated by PW2 and calculated the compensation.

7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for appellant and respondent No.2.

8. The learned counsel for appellant contends that Tribunal has not awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation on all the heads. Tribunal has taken disability as 50%, as per Schedule I and Part II, Sl.No.17 or 18 of the Employees Compensation Act, amputation of leg above the knee joint, the disability has to be assessed as 70% to 80%.

9. In the case of Sanjay Rajpoot Vs Ram Singh and others in Civil Appeal No.2321/2025, the Hon'ble Apex Court in such an instance assessed the permanent disability at the rate of 90%. The said principle applicable to facts of the present case. It is further contended that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.1318/2021(MV-I) in the case of M.Mani Vs A. Gulsar and another in the judgment dated 19.01.2024, held that amputation of leg may lead to disability of 80%.

10. Considering the said facts, disability in this case also may be taken as 90% of the whole body. The Tribunal has not added future prospects to the income of the claimant. If that is the case, considering the same compensation amount may be enhanced.

11. Learned counsel for respondent seriously opposes the claim of the appellant and further stated that in the event if this Court comes to conclusion that claimant is entitled to enhancement then 25% fut