IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5762/2025 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SRI CHOWDAPPA @ CHOWDAPPA

S/O MUNIYAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 2829,

4^TH CROSS, OLD RTO,

BHANASHANKARI LAYOUT,

BHATTARAHALLI VIRGONAGAR,

BENGALURU-560 049.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. GURUDEVA PRASAD K T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

MOTOR CLAIMS HUB,

KSRTC, SHANTHINAGAR,

Digitally signed

BENGALURU-560 027.

by

…RESPONDENT

PADMASHRE E

SHEKHAR (BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN., ADVOCATE)

DESAI

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE

Location: High

Court Of JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.29.10.2024 PASSED IN MVC Karnatka NO.3898/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL JUDGE,

COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-21, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF

COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING 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 29.10.2024 passed in MVC No.3898/2023 on the file of the XVII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT, Bengaluru, for enhancing the compensation.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The petitioner/injured claimant aged 49 years met with an accident on 17.05.2023 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record had granted Rs.5,11,774/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation.

Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed.

4. The claimant/petitioner mainly contended that he was hospitalized for 3 days and sustained grievous injury and spent more than Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical expenses, but the Tribunal granted Rs.1,36,094/-. The doctor assessed the disability as 16% but the Tribunal has taken disability only at 8% and further submits that the interest is to be increased and thus requested for enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel for respondent stated that the doctor has not issued disability certificate. But still the tribunal has taken the disability as 8%. The amount granted under other heads are also reasonable. Therefore, it needs no interference.

5. The petitioner stated that he was doing coolie work and earning Rs.1,000/- per day. But he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident on 17.05.2023, the Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income as Rs.16,000/- and it needs no interference. He was aged 49 years as per Ex.P14/copy of Voter ID and the multiplier taken is 13. The petitioner sustained communited fracture of the lower end of the right tibia with dislocation of the 1^st MTP and fracture of the metatarsal which is grievous in nature. The doctor who examined the injured, assessed the disability of the right lower limb as 47% and that of the whole body disability as 16%. But he was not a treating doctor. He has not issued any disability certificate. The Tribunal has taken 8% of the disability and granted Rs.1,99,680/- towards loss of future earning capacity and it needs no interference. He incurred Rs.1,36,094/- as per Ex.P12/medical bills and it is confirmed. He was hospitalized for 3 days. The tribunal granted Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering and the same is confirmed. Regarding loss of earning during laid up period, considering the nature of injuries, this Court finds that he might not have attended any coolie work at least for a period of 3 months. Hence, amount granted towards loss of earning during laid up period is Rs.16000 x 3 = Rs.48,000/- under loss of earning during laid up period. Further, towards nutritious food and attendant charges it