IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9248/2018 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

HUMAYUN PASHA S/O ASLAM PASHA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O. ARENAHALLI VILLAGE RAVANDOOR HOBLI AND POST PERIYAPATNA TALUK-571 107.

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA …APPELLANT BAHAR KHANAM (BY SMT. SUMA KEDILAYA, ADV., FOR Location: HIGH SRI. PADMANABHA KEDILAYA V, ADV.)

COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

1. K.A. SEETHAMMA W/O A.B. AYYAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT "SHILPASHREE"

MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGARA MURNAD VILLAGE AND POST MADIKERI TALUK-571 252.

2. THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE (TP HUB)

ADICHUNCHANAGIRI ROAD KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSURU-570 023.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.J. ROHITH GOWDA, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADV., FOR R2)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.67/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND MACT, PERIYAPATNA, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the injured/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 08.06.2018 passed in MVC.No.67/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, MACT, Periyapatna, (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

2. Though this appeal is listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

3. Smt.Suma Kedilaya, learned counsel for Sri.Padmanabha Kedilaya V., learned counsel for the appellant-injured submits that the appellant, who was aged about 33 years and Mason by vocation, met with a road accident on 30.10.2013 and later his right limb from above the knee was amputated. In order to prove the claim, the appellant examined himself as PW1 and Dr.Giridhar Kumar, as PW2, who has assessed the disability of the appellant to the extent of 85%. However, the Tribunal assessed the disability at 80%. It is submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that PW2 has clearly deposed that due to the amputation, the appellant is unable to continue his vocation i.e., mason work, and he cannot lift the weights. Hence, the functional disability of the appellant is required to be re-assessed at 100%. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has also committed an error in assessing the income of the injured, hence, she submits that the income of the injured is required to be re-assessed notionally at Rs.8,000/- per month. It is also submitted that the appellant was in- patient for 181 days on different occasions and the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation on all the heads. It is contended that the appellant is entitled to compensation at the rate of 40% of the assessed income towards the loss of future prospects, as well as the appellant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards the purchase of artificial limb and these aspects were are not considered by the Tribunal and awarded the meager compensation of Rs.13,42,400 with interest at 9% per annum. In support of her contentions, she placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Ettiappan v. D.Kumar and Anr.¹ Hence, she seeks to allow the appeal.

4. Per contra, Sri.A.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the appellant has sustained amputation above knee; however, he can carry out any other work other than the mason work and considering these aspects, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability at 80%. Hence, there is no scope to consider the disability on the higher side. It is submitted that the

SLP (C) No.15621/2025 DD 16.10.2025

Tribunal, taking note of the evidence on record, has awarded just and fair compensation on all the heads.

Hence