B. C. CHANDRA @ CHANDRASHEKAR vs KEMPARAJU. B. C. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 35194

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 35194

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Rajesh Rai K, J
B. C. CHANDRA @ CHANDRASHEKAR – Appellant
Versus
KEMPARAJU. B. C. – Respondent
MFA No. 6599 of 2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pramod R.
For the Respondents: Nirmala S.

Important Points

Compensation in motor accident claims is enhanced by correctly assessing whole-body disability based on medical evidence and adding a percentage for future prospects to the notional income of the injured party.

Subject

Civil - Motor Accident Claims

Act Referred

Motor Vehicles Act: S.173(1)

Headnote

The appeal was filed under S.173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the compensation awarded in MVC No.17/2016. The claimant, an agriculturist, sustained a type IIIA Open Bimalleolar fracture dislocation of the left ankle and a closed communited lateral malleolus fracture of the right ankle. The Tribunal had assessed the disability at 12% and awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,45,757/-. The Court found the disability assessment inadequate given the medical evidence and the claimant's occupation. The primary issue was whether the disability percentage and the resulting compensation were sufficient. The Court reasoned that based on the medical evidence and the impact on functional capacity, the whole body disability should be assessed at 25% instead of 12%. Furthermore, the Court applied the principle that future prospects of 25% should be added to the notional income of the claimant, citing established precedents. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part

Table of Content
1. summary of the initial claim and the tribunal's award. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. enhancement of whole body disability to 25% based on medical evidence. (Para 4)
3. calculation of income including the addition of future prospects. (Para 5 , 6)
4. adjustment of compensation for laid-up period, pain, and amenities. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
5. final determination of the modified compensation amount. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6599 OF 2022 (MV-I)

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.13.10.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.17/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.4,45,757/- awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.17/2016 vide judgment and award dated 13.10.2021, is in appeal.

2. The fact that the accident occurred and the further fact that the offending vehicle was insured is not in dispute.

3. The Tribunal, on assessment of evidence, has awarded the following sums as compensation:

Sl. No.	Particulars	Amount (Rs.)
1.	Loss of future earnings	2,26,800
2.	Medical and hospitalization expenses	1,44,957
3.	Transportation/conveyance, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure	10,000
4.	Loss of earning during the period of treatment	9,000
5.	Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries	40,000
6.	Loss of amenities/Loss of expectation of life	15,000
	Total	4,45,757

4. The Tribunal, has assessed the disability of the injured at 12% by considering the evidence of PW.1 - the injured, CW.1 - the Doctor and also wound certificate marked at Ex.P6. However, on careful examination of CW.1, it is evident that the Doctor has categorically stated that the claimant has sustained type IIIA Open Bimalleolar fracture dislocation left ankle and closed communited lateral malleolus fracture right ankle. Further, it was stated that the fracture of the right leg bone of the injured had united, but left leg bone had deteriorated. The claimant, being an agriculturist by occupation, was unable to carry on agricultural activities in the same manner as he had been doing prior to the accident on account of the injuries sustained by him. Having regard to the nature of the injuries and their impact on the functional capacity of the claimant, the Doctor assessed the permanent physical disability at 75% in respect of the affected limb. In the cross-examination of CW.1, a suggestion was made that, while assessing the permanent disability to the whole body, one-third of the disability could be taken into consideration in respect of whole body. Despite such suggestion, the Tribunal has taken only 12% disability. As such, in my considered view, it would be just and appropriate to assess the whole body disability at 25% instead of 12%.

5. The Tribunal has rightly determined the monthly income, notionally at Rs.9,000/- as per the chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, since there was no credible documentary evidence to ascertain the actual monthly income. Since the disability is assessed at 25%, in view of law laid by the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.103807/2016 and connected with other matter and also by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sidram vs. United India - 2023 (3) SCC 439, the future prospectus of 25% requires to be added to the income. Accordingly, the income of the claimant would be Rs.11,250/- (Rs.9,000 + 25%).

6. As the claimant was aged 43 years, a multiplier of '14' would have to be applied. Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.4,72,500/- (Rs.11,250 x 12 x 14 x 25%) towards 'loss of future income'.

7. As a consequence, the amount of Rs.9,000/- awarded by th