IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5340 OF 2024 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

PAVANA C S/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT E 15/A/2 CHIKKANAHALLI ROAD PARVATHI NAGAR, ATTIBELE BANGALORE-560 068.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. RANGEGOWDA N R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER THE ESTATE BUILDING NO 121, DICKENSON ROAD M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

Digitally signed by

2. KRISHNAPPA PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI S/O VENKTAPPA Location: High AGED MAJOR Court of NO 90, BIDARAGUPPE Karnataka ATTIBELE CIRCLE, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-562 107.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL., ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.09.09.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.982/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU CITY, 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

A common award was passed by the Tribunal in MVC Nos.982 and 983/2018 dated 09.09.2022. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 09.09.2022 passed in MVC No.982/2018 on the file of the XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Bengaluru City, for enhancing the compensation.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The injured claimant met with an accident on

02.02.2018 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.18,00,000. But the Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted Rs.6,20,747/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant preferred an appeal and mainly contended that the Tribunal granted meager amount under the other heads and PW2/doctor assessed the disability as 45% to the right lower limb and 15% to the whole body. But the Tribunal has erred in taking the disability as 10% instead of 15%. Also interest is to be granted at the rate of 9%. Thus, he has requested for enhancement of the compensation.

5. Learned counsel for respondent stated that the injured is an employee in Bata Company and the fractures are united and it was observed by the Tribunal that the disability will not have much impact on the work of petitioner and accordingly the Tribunal rightly considered 10% disability. So also it is stated that he himself admitted that he was earning Rs.12,000/-. But the Tribunal has taken Rs.12,500/- based on the chart. Learned counsel for respondent further argued that Tribunal granted excessive amount under pain and suffering, loss of amenities and other heads and it is to be reduced.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any proof of income. As he met with an accident in the year 2018, his notional income is to be taken as Rs.12,500/- per month. But he himself admitted that he was getting Rs.12,000/- per month. But in all cases where there is no proof of income, this Court is relying upon the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Therefore, even in this case, as there is no proof of income, this Court finds it reasonable to take his notional income as Rs. 12,500/- as it is a beneficial legislation and whichever is favourable to the litigant is to be considered. He was aged 19 years and the multiplier to be taken as ‘18’ and as per the evidence of orthopedic surgeon PW2 he sustained fracture of shaft femur and he underwent surgery. Accordingly, assessed the disability of the limb as 45% and whole body as 15%. Injuries are permanent in nature and he has difficulty in doing daily routine activit