IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3976 OF 2025 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SRI MUKESH KUMAR K.S.

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O. SRINIVASA K, R/A. NO. 2, 2ND B CROSS, MANORAYANAPALYA, RT NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. D. NAGARAJA.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI ARUN KUMAR A MAJOR, S/O. ANJANAPPA L, Digitally signed by R/A. NO. 1, I MAIN ROAD, SHARADAVANI B

2ND CROSS, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, Location: High Court of MANORAYANAPALYA, RT NAGAR POST, Karnataka BENGALURU- 560 032.

2. LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE LTD., NO. 1, ALYASSA, 1^ST FLOOR, REAR PORTION, OLD NO. 28, NEW NO. 23, RICHMOND ROAD, RICHMOND TOWN, BENGALURU- 560 025, REP. BY ITS MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N A, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

V/O DTD 06/08/2025, NOTICE TO R1 D/W)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT. 17.03.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO. 365/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND ACJM, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-2 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM ETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the arguments of both sides.

2. This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 17.03.2025 passed in MVC No.365/2022, by the VI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM and MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-2) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. The injured claimant met with a road traffic accident on 22.12.2021 and filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.36,00,000/-. The Tribunal, after considered the evidence 14,46,251/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant has preferred the present appeal contending that he sustained grievous injuries. The doctor examined as PW-3 assessed the disability at 42.22% to the limb and 14.07% to the whole body. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the disability at 5% and awarded meager amounts under the other heads.

5. It is also contended that though the Tribunal granted Rs.1,62,000/- towards loss of future income, the same was not reflected in the operative portion of the award. The claimant was treated as an inpatient for 21 days, and therefore seeks for enhancement of compensation.

6. Per contra, learned counsel of the respondent contended that the Tribunal has rightly taken the disability at 5% based on the medical evidence, as it does not affect the earning capacity of the claimant and that the compensation awarded under other heads is just and reasonable, needs no interference.

7. Though it is contended that the appellant was working as an electrician earning Rs.25,000/- per month, no documentary proof is produced. As the accident occurred in the year 2021, this Court finds it reasonable to take his notional income as Rs.15,000/- per month, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authorities. The appellant was aged 22 years and the applicable multiplier is '18'.

8. As per Ex.P-10 - wound certificate and Ex.P-13 -

discharge summary, the claimant sustained the following injuries: Injuries:

i. RTA with TBI(Traumatice Brain Injury)

ii. Fracture of left clavicle and left scapula, iii. Mid-clavicular fracture with segmental involvement iv. Thrombosis of subclavian artery Operations done:

i. Wound debridement, exploration and repair of subclavian artery with skin graft done on

24.12.2021.

ii. PTEF (Poly Tetra Fluoro Ethylene) prosthetic bypass graft + repair to subclavian artery done on 25.12.2021.

iii. Wound suturing + IMF (Inter Maxillary Fixation)

screw application done on 06.01.2022.

9. The doctor (PW-3, Senior Consultant Orthopedist) deposed that:

i.