IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3922/2024 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGER MAGMA HDI GIC LTD., 1^ST FLOOR H M J C TOWERS JC ROAD BENGALURU-560 002 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SYED UMAR HUSSAIN S/O SYED ALTAF HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NO.37, 3RD ‘G’ MAIN ROAD NAGAMMA LAYOUT KAVALBYRASANDRA Digitally signed BENGALURU-560 032 by PADMASHR EE SHEKHAR DESAI 2. MOHAMMED AFSAL K Location: High R/AT KUNIYIL, KARINGAD POST, Court of KAVILUMPURA, KOZHIKODE, Karnataka KERALA-673 513.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANGEGOWDA N R., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2-MOHAMMED AFSAL .K-SERVED)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.03.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.3578/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND A.C.M.M., MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-22), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 13,84,136/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FORM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT OF THE AMOUNT IN THE TRIBUNAL.

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/Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 22.03.2024 passed in MVC No.3578/2022 on the file of the XX Additional Small Causes Judge and A.C.M.M., MACT, Bengaluru, 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. Injured claimant met with an accident on

23.05.2022 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.13,84,136/- with interest of the rate of 6 % p.a. from date of petition till realisation.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, Insurance company preferred appeal and mainly contended that though doctor has assessed the disability as 19%, Tribunal has taken future prospects of 40% and it is not proper. Further, the amount granted on other heads is excessive and thus requested for modification of the order. Though it is stated that petitioner was AC mechanic and earning Rs.25,000/- p.m., he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2022 his notional income is to be taken as Rs.15,500/- p.m., and he was aged 22 years and the multiplier taken is 18.

5. The petitioner sustained type ‘III A open fracture of both bones of right leg with comminution with medial malleolus fracture’ and underwent surgery. The petitioner also examined doctor as PW3 and he assessed the disability of the right lower limb as 56% and that of the whole body as 19%. The Tribunal has taken 1/3^rd of 56% i.e., 18%. As the disability is only 18%, he is not entitled for future prospects. The Tribunal assessed disability as 18% and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said disability assessed by the Tribunal. Hence, future earning capacity of the petitioner is taken as Rs.15,500 x 12 x 18 x 18% = Rs.6,02,640/-. The tribunal granted Rs.2,29,440/- towards medical expenses as per Ex.P11 and it is confirmed. He was hospitalized for a period of 5 days, therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to modify the amount towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities as Rs.1.5 lakh. Further, the petitioner might not have worked for a period of 2 months. Therefore, Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.31,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period and Rs.5000/- towards food, nourishment and attendant charges and the same is confirmed. The amount granted by the Tribunal under other head is confirmed.

6. Thus in all, components awarded by this court are as below,