IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8096 OF 2016 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

HAROON RASHEED ZUFFARI, S/O GULAM HUSSAIN ZUFFARI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, NO.16, HOSPITAL ROAD SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 01.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. K. SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR B.M.T.C, DOUBLE ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 01.

Digitally signed by …RESPONDENT SHARADAVANI B Location: High (BY SRI. F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE)

Court of Karnataka THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.4010/15 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BENGALURU, 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 against the judgment and award dated

05.07.2016, passed in MVC No.4010/2015 by the Court of Member Prl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore (for short 'Tribunal').

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal.

3. Heard the arguments of both sides.

4. Injured - claimant met with an accident on

30.07.2015 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.2,92,700/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from date of petition, till the deposit.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal contending that he sustained crush injury of left foot and abrasions all over the body which are grievous in nature. He was inpatient for two days. Operations were done and implants (K wire fixation) was done to all fingers of foot along with other treatments to the left foot. Half of the appellant's foot was amputated on 11.08.2015 and later, he was discharged. He has taken bed rest for 5 months. He spent one and half lakh towards his medical expenses. The amount granted under the other heads are meagre. The Appellant was a Manager in Furniture shop and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. PW2 - doctor assessed 40% disability to the whole body. The Tribunal has taken notional income of Rs.7,000/- and also disability was considered as 15% to the whole body. Thus, the Tribunal without appreciating the facts, granted only meagre amount and thus, requested for enhancement.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that it is the case of amputation and doctor assessed the disability as

40%. As such one third of it cannot be taken.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that in Schedule No.1, Part-II, Item No.22 of Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, it is mentioned that "Amputation of one foot resulting in end bearing" and the said injury is taken as 50% of loss of earning capacity. it is not amputation of the entire foot. Amputation of one foot resulting in end bearing. Therefore, the scheduled injury is different to that of the injury sustained by the petitioner.

8. Though the petitioner stated that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2015, his notional income is to be taken as Rs.9,000/- per month as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services. He was aged about 63 years as per wound certificate and the multiplier is '7' and the petitioner sustained following injuries as per wound certificate-Ex.P3:

"Severe Degloving injury to left foot with skin, avulsed with no active bleeding with multiple phalynx fracture."

9. As per Ex.P7-discharge summary, the said injuries are grievous in nature. He also examined the doctor as P.W.2. He stated that the petitioner sustained severe degloving injury left foot with multiple phalanged fracture and he underwent surgery in the form of wound debridement and K wire fixation for all toes. He was d