SRI SHIVAPPA @ SIVA @ SHIVA vs THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55929
MFA No. 4909 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010378642019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAAT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4909 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHIVAPPA@ SIVA @ SHIVA,
S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO.146, VAJARAHALLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
ALSO AT NO.2-132-7, AMIDALAGONDI,
MADAKASIRA, ANANTHPURA DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH PIN-515301.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAGHU.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
D.O-III, MAHALAKSHMI COMPLEX,
M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
2. MR. SADATH ULLA KHAN,
S/O ASAD ULLA KHAN,
TH
6 CROSS, P.H.COLONY,
TUMKUR-572101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JANARDHANA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O DTD:18.09.2026-NOTICE TO R2-DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MVACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED12.04.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1595/18 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SCJ &
MACT, BENGALURU [SCCH-17], PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
Digitally signed by
JAI JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55929
MFA No. 4909 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010378642019
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal seeks to challenge the Judgment
and Award dated 12.04.2019 passed by the XIX Additional
SCJ & MACT, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Impugned Award’). The claim petition filed by the
appellant/claimant for compensation was allowed and
compensation in a sum of Rs.18,74,969/- was awarded
along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The
challenge in the present appeal is by the injured claimant.
2. Although the matter is listed for admission, in view of
the limited issue involved and with the consent of the
counsel for both parties, the matter is taken up for hearing
and disposal today itself.
3. The facts are not in dispute and neither is the aspect
of negligence. The injured suffered an accident on
2
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55929
MFA No. 4909 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010378642019
12.02.2018. At that time he was aged 36 years and was
carrying out the avocation of a mason. The injuries
sustained by the appellant/claimant were a) posterior
dislocation of right hip, b) crush injury to right leg, c) Type
II comminated fracture of shaft of Ulna – right. In view of
the accident, the right leg above the knee was also
amputated. Since the accident occurred in the year 2018,
the learned Tribunal considered the notional income of the
appellant/claimant at Rs.11,000/- per month and
considering the age of the appellant/claimant, had applied
the multiplier of ‘15’. The learned Tribunal after examining
the evidence placed before it,had assessed the disability at
50% and calculated the compensation towards ‘loss of
income due to permanent disability’ as follows:
HEAD AMOUNT
Loss of income due to 11,000 x 12 x 15 x 50% =
permanent disability Rs.9,90,000/-
3.1 In addition, the learned Tribunal had awarded
amounts under the head of ‘pain and suffering’, ‘attendant
charges’, ‘medical expenses’, ‘loss of income during laid up
3
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55929
MFA No. 4909 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010378642019
period’, ‘loss of amenities’ and for ‘future medical
expenses’ in the following amounts:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount (in
Rs.)
a) Towards pain and suffering 1,50,000/-
b) Towards attendant
charges,
extra food and conveyance
expenses
30,000/-
c) Towards medical expenses 3,88,969/-
d) Loss of income during laid 66,000/-
up period
e) Loss of income due to
permanentdisability
9,90,000/-
f) Loss of future amenities
and
happiness.
1,00,000/-
g) Towards future medical 1,50,000/-
expenses
TOTAL 18,74,969/-
3.2 These facts are undisputed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant firstly
contends that since the accident took place in the year
2018, the notional income was required to be awarded at
Rs.12,500/-. Secondly, he submits that the physical
disability was taken as the functional disability. The
4
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55929
MFA No. 4909 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010378642019
learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that
since the amputation of the right leg of the
appellant/claimant was undertaken and his avocation was
of masonry, the appellant/claimant would not be able to
carry out his avocation at all in future. Thus, he submits
that the functional disability was to be taken at 100% and
compensation towards future medical expenses also
requires to be enhanced. The reliance in this regard is also
placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
1
of M Paramesh vs Vrl Logistics Ltd . Lastly, it is
contended that future prospects was not awarded by the
learned Tribunal while awarding compensation. Since the
appellant/claimant was more than 36 years old, future
prospects at the rate of 40% was to be awarded to the
appellant/claimant.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance
company on the other hand fairly submits that the
notional income was wrongly awarded as Rs.11,000/- and
1
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1188
5
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55929
MFA No. 4909 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010378642019
should have been awarded at Rs.12,500/- per month
considering the year of the accident. He however submits
that the functional disability amounts have already been
given for the various non-pecuniary heads as well as
future medical expenses and so far as it concerns the
aspect of disability, there would be no requirement of
amending the 50% disability assessed by the learned
Tribunal.
6. This Court has examined the evidence placed before
it as well as the depositions of both the PW-1 and his
Doctor PW-3. PW-1 in his deposition submits that after the
accident, he was taken to the Tumkur Government
Hospital and then Janapriya Hospital in Bangalore. He was
admitted as an inpatient for 8 days and had undergone
several surgeries. He also states that his right leg had to
be amputated due to its non-viability. PW-1 also states
that he was thereafter admitted to Ramaiah Harsha
Hospital at Nelamangala as an inpatient for 10 days and
had to undergo another surgery. PW-1 additionally states
6
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55929
MFA No. 4909 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010378642019
that despite all the available treatment, he has lost his
right leg and cannot even stand without crutches. He
further states that he is dependent on others for all his
daily needs and even is not able to use the toilet. He
submits that he is bedridden and not able to sit for long
hours of work without the help of an attendant and
crutches. He also submits that even his right hand has
become weak and he is not able to do any hard work. The
relevant extract of the deposition of PW-1 are set out
below:
“2. Immediately after the accident, I was taken to
Koratagere govt. hospital. Wherein I was given first aid
and then shifted to Tumkur govt. hospital and then to
Janapriya hospital, Bengaluru. I was admitted as an in-
patient for 8 days. X-rays revealed following injuries:
1) Crush injury to right leg and thigh with myonecrosis,
2) Shaft ulna compound type II comminuted fracture
right.
I have undergone surgeries where my right leg has been
amputated due to non viability of right leg. I was
discharged with follow up advice.
3. I further submit that due to high cost at the hospital, I
was then shifted to Ramaiah Harsha hospital,
Nelamangala and was admitted as an in-patient for 10
days. I underwent surgery on my right hand and
discharged with follow up advice.
7
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55929
MFA No. 4909 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010378642019
4. I have spent a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards medical
and connected expenses. I am still under treatment as
an out-patient at the above mentioned hospital.
5. I submit that at the time of accident I was aged 36
years and was hale and healthy. I was a Mason and used
to earn Rs.18,000/- per month. I have not earned from
the date of accident.
6. I submit that in spite of all possible and available
treatment, I cannot stand without the help of crutches
and I have lost my right leg. I cannot do my work myself
and I am dependent on others for my daily needs. I am
not able to use Indian toilet system. I am always bed
ridden. I am not able to sit for long hours and not able to
walk without the help of attendant and crutches. I cannot
stand for long hours even with the help of support. I
have become a permanent handicap and dependant on
others for my life time. I always get severe pain in the
amputated leg. I cannot travel in public transport
system. Therefore, I should always hire a vehicle for
going out or for going to hospital for follow up treatment.
7. I further submit that my right hand has become weak
and not able to do any hard work with my right hand. I
am not able to raise my right hand above shoulder level.
I am not able to rotate my right hand as that of my left
hand. I am not able to carry any weight with my right
hand. I My right hand grip is reduced. I am leading a
cosmetic life.”
7. The evidence of the Doctor also reflects the
amputation of the appellant/claimant's right leg was done
above the knee. He further submits that the
appellant/claimant complains of pain in the right arm and
he is unable to rotate the right forearm and use the right
hand normally. In addition, there is severe wasting of the
8
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55929
MFA No. 4909 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010378642019
right forearm and arm muscles, stiffness of the right elbow
and wrist. Based on his assessment, PW-3 has found that
the total disability of his arm is 49% while the permanent
disability of his right lower limb is 85%. The relevant
extract of the evidence of PW-3 is set out below:
“5. I submit the petitioner now complains of
unable to walk normally pain the right forearm,
unable to rotate the right forearm, unable to use the
right hand normally.
6. I submit on examination the petitioner has
healed unhealthy AK stump of the right leg,
unhealthy scar over the right forearm, severe
wasting of the right forearm and arm muscles,
stiffness of the right elbow and wrist.
7. I submit the recent X-rays of the right lower
limb shows AK stump and x-ray of the right forearm
shows Non-union of the right unla with implant in-
situ.
8. I submit the petitioner was examined
clinically, radiologically and assessment of disability
was done as per central govt notification
ASSESSMENT OF DISABILITY OF UPPER LIMB
1. ARM COMPONENT 2. HAND COMPONENT
ASSESSMENT OF LOSS OF ARM COMPONENT
CONSISTS
a. MOBILITY COMPONENT
b. STABILITY COMPONENT
c. COORDINATION ACTIVITIES
d. ADDITIONAL POINTS
9
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55929
MFA No. 4909 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010378642019
ASSESSMENT OF MOBILITY COMPONENTS
Range of motion Normal Existing Loss Disability
0
Shoulder (30%) 0-180
Normal Nil Nil
0
0-180
0
0-220
0
Elbow (30%) 0-180
Flexion/extension
0
0-90
50% 15%
0
Forearm 0-180
Sup/Ponation
0
0-90
50% 7.5%
0
0-180
0
0-90
Wrist 30%
Palmar – dorsi flexion
(90-90)
50% 7.5%
TOTAL LOSS OF MOBILITY COMPONMENTS =
22.25%
ASSESSMENTS OF STABILITY COMPONENTS
POWER NORMAL EXISTING LOSS
Shoulder (30%) 5 5 NIL
Elbow (30%) 5 4 6%
Wrist 30% 5 4 6%
TOTAL LOSS OF STABILITY COMPONENTS
= 12%
SUM OF STABILITY AND MOBILITY
COMPONENTS = 31%
ASSESSMENT OF CORODINATION ACTIVITIES
Co-ordinate activities Inability Existing
1. Lifting over head object and placing 10% 2%
2.Touching the nose with end of extremity 10% 2%
3. Eating Indian 10% 2%
4. Combing 10% 2%
5. Putting and removing shirt 10% 2%
6. Drinking glass of water 10%
7. Buttoning 10% 2%
8. tie nada dhoti 10% 2%
9. Writing 10%
10
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55929
MFA No. 4909 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010378642019
TOTAL LOSS OF CO-ORDINATED ACTIVITIES =
14%
SUM OF ALL USING TELESCOPIC FORMULA =
39%
ADDITIONAL POINTS: A total of 10% weightage
can be added directly to the disability without
telescopic formula
Pain MILD 3%
MODERATE 6%
SEVERE 9% 3%
Deformity Functional 3%
positions
Non functional 6%
positions
Mal Functional 3%
Alignment positions
Non functional 6% 6%
positions
Contractures 6%
Infections Superficial 3%
Deep 6%
Cosmo. 6%
Dysfunction
Shortening First ½ inch Nil
1 inch for 2%
every inch
Dominant 4% 4%
Hand
TOTAL ADDITIONAL POINTS = 10%
TOTAL DISABILITY OF THE ARM = 49%
Permanent disability for the right lower limb
= 85%
9. I submit the petitioner needs another surgery for
non-union of the right ulna the estimate of this
surgery is around Rupees Sixty thousand, he needs
an above knee prosthesis for the right lower limb,
the approximate cost of this Prosthesis is around
Rupees Six lakhs and this prosthesis needs regular
11
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55929
MFA No. 4909 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010378642019
maintenance the cost of this is around Rupees
Fifteen thousand yearly. The prosthesis has to be
changed and serviced regularly.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
8. The Doctor further states that the appellant/claimant
would need another surgery which would cost him
Rs.60,000/- and he needs a knee prosthesis for the right
lower limb and the cost of the prosthesis is around
Rs.6,00,000/- and it needs to be serviced regularly.
9. The Supreme Court in the judgment of Raj Kumar
2
Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another , has elaborately explained
the distinction between physical disability and functional
disability and has held that for the purposes of
determining compensation, the effect of the permanent
disability on the earning capacity of the injured is the
relevant consideration. The relevant observations are set
out below:
" 10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent
disability as a result of injuries, the assessment
of compensation under the head of loss of future
earnings would depend upon the effect and
impact of such permanent disability on his
2
(2011) 1 SCC 343
12
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55929
MFA No. 4909 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010378642019
earning capacity. The Tribunal should not
mechanically apply the percentage of permanent
disability as the percentage of economic loss or
loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases,
the percentage of economic loss, that is, the
percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising
from a permanent disability will be different
from the percentage of permanent disability.
Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a
particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability
would result in a corresponding loss of earning
capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced
show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that
there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most
of the cases, equating the extent (percentage)
of loss of earning capacity to the extent
(percentage) of permanent disability will result
in award of either too low or too high a
compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal
is the effect of the permanent disability on the
earning capacity of the injured; and after
assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms
of a percentage of the income, it has to be
quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the
future loss of earnings (by applying the standard
multiplier method used to determine loss of
dependency). We may however note that in some
cases, on appreciation of evidence and
assessment, the Tribunal may find that the
percentage of loss of earning capacity as a
result of the permanent disability, is
approximately the same as the percentage of
permanent disability in which case, of course,
the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for
determination of compensation. (See for example,
the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.[(2010) 10 SCC 254 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298] and
Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.[(2010)
10 SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8
Scale 567] ).
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide
whether there is any permanent disability and, if
13
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55929
MFA No. 4909 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010378642019
so, the extent of such permanent disability. This
means that the Tribunal should consider and decide
with reference to the evidence:
(i)whether the disablement is permanent or
temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is
permanent total disablement or permanent
partial disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed
with reference to any specific limb, then the
effect of such disablement of the limb on the
functioning of the entire body, that is, the
permanent disability suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no
permanent disability then there is no question of
proceeding further and determining the loss of
future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal
concludes that there is permanent disability then it
will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal
ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of
the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to
determine whether such permanent disability
has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the
permanent disability on the actual earning
capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has
to first ascertain what activities the claimant
could carry on in spite of the permanent
disability and what he could not do as a result of
the permanent disability (this is also relevant
for awarding compensation under the head of
loss of amenities of life). The second step is to
ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of
work before the accident, as also his age. The
third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant
is totally disabled from earning any kind of
livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the
permanent disability, the claimant could still
effectively carry on the activities and functions,
which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii)
whether he was prevented or restricted from
discharging his previous activities and functions,
but could carry on some other or lesser scale of
14
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55929
MFA No. 4909 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010378642019
activities and functions so that he continues to
earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.
xxx xxx xxx
15. It may be noted that when compensation is
awarded by treating the loss of future earning
capacity as 100% (or even anything more than
50%), the need to award compensation
separately under the head of loss of amenities
or loss of expectation of life may disappear and
as a result, only a token or nominal amount may
have to be awarded under the head of loss of
amenities or loss of expectation of life, as
otherwise there may be a duplication in the
award of compensation. Be that as it may.
xxx xxx xxx
19.We may now summarise the principles discussed
above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising
from injuries), do not result in loss of
earningcapacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with
reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be
assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning
capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of
loss of earning capacity is not the same as the
percentage of permanent disability (except in a
few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of
evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss
of earning capacity is the same as the
percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant
or who examined him subsequently to assess
the extent of his permanent disability can give
evidence only in regard to the extent of
permanent disability. The loss of earning
capacity is something that will have to be
assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the
evidence in entirety.
15
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55929
MFA No. 4909 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010378642019
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in
different percentages of loss of earning capacity
in different persons, depending upon the nature
of profession, occupation or job, age, education
and other factors."
[Emphasis Supplied]
10. This judgment has been followed by the Supreme
Court in the case of M. Paramesh , which has been cited
by the appellant. The Supreme Court has held that in a
case where the injured is a mason, since the work of a
mason is essentially physical and manual avocation
requiring continuous use and support of both legs and due
to the fact that the appellant/claimant underwent
amputation of his right leg above the knee, it is not
possible for him to do his avocation at all. The relevant
extract of the M. Paramesh case is set out below:
“22. From the above observations in Raj Kumar
(supra), it becomes crystal clear that thought the
physical disability may be assessed at a particular
percentage, the functional disability affecting earning
capacity may, depending upon the nature of avocation
carried on by the injured, be assessed at a higher
percentage including 100%. The assessment of
compensation in cases of permanent disability cannot be
undertaken by mechanically applying the percentage of
physical disability as the percentage of economic loss.
23. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the
appellant was working as a mason at the time of the
accident. The work of a mason is essentially a physical
16
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55929
MFA No. 4909 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010378642019
and manual avocation requiring continuous use and
support of both legs. The material on record further
reveals that on account of the injuries suffered in the
accident, the appellant underwent amputation of his right
leg above the knee.
24. By virtue of the aforesaid amputation, the
appellant has effectively lost his capacity to continue the
work of a mason which was admittedly the sole
avocation being pursued by him for earning his
livelihood. It is not even the case of the respondents that
the appellant was engaged in any other sedentary
occupation or that despite the amputation suffered by
him, his earning capacity remained unaffected.
25. The amputation of the right leg above the knee
has not merely caused physical disability to the appellant
but has rendered him incapable of effectively carrying on
the manual and physical work which constituted his only
source of livelihood. In such circumstances, restricting
the loss of earning capacity to 70% merely on the basis
of physical disability would not be justified.
26. Having regard to the nature of avocation carried
on by the appellant, the extent of injuries suffered by
him and the principles laid down by this Court in Raj
Kumar (supra), we are of the considered opinion that
the functional disability suffered by the appellant is
required to be assessed at 100% and not at 70% as
assessed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court.
Consequently, the loss of earning capacity suffered by
the appellant deserves to be computed by treating the
functional disability at 100%. Taking the monthly income
of the appellant at Rs.12,000/- with addition of 40%
towards future prospects and applying the multiplier of
‘17’ as adopted by the Courts below, the compensation
payable towards loss of earning capacity is recalculated
accordingly.
27. We are also of the considered view that the amount
awarded by the High Court towards future medical
expenses including artificial limb/prosthesis requires
enhancement. The appellant has suffered amputation
above the knee and would require periodic replacement
and maintenance of artificial limb/prosthesis throughout
his lifetime besides continued medical assistance and
17
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55929
MFA No. 4909 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010378642019
rehabilitation. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
the amount awarded by the High Court under the said
head deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 1,00,000/- to
Rs. 2,00,000/-.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
11. In addition, the Supreme Court also awarded
amounts for the future medical expenses for an artificial
limb.
12. The evidence which has been produced by the
appellant/claimant shows that not only is his right leg
amputated above his knee, but his right arm also has a
permanent disability of 49%. The evidence placed on
record thus clearly affirms that the appellant/claimant is
unable to perform even his day-to-day activities without
the help of an attendant and he can certainly not be
expected to go back to carry on his avocation. Since the
appellant/claimant was aged 36 years on the date of the
accident, he would need a prosthetic leg which is usually
required to be changed every 5 years. Thus, this Court
agrees that the disability of the appellant/claimant should
be taken at 100%. Accordingly, the compensation towards
18
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55929
MFA No. 4909 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010378642019
appellant/claimant’s functional disability towards ‘loss of
future earning capacity’ would be:
Loss of future earning Amount
capacity
(12500 + 40%) x 12 x 15 x
100%
= 17500 x 12 x 15 x 100%
Rs.31,50,000/-
12.1 Further, prosthetic leg is required to be fixed and
each prosthetic leg do not usually last more than 4 to 5
years and requires maintenance. Accordingly, the amount
for a prosthetic leg over the next 30 years also need to be
factored into the compensation. Further, the compensation
towards attendant charges and future medical expenses
also requires to be enhanced. In view thereof, the
compensation awarded is enhanced in the following terms:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount (in
Rs.)
a) Towards pain and suffering 1,50,000/-
b) Towards attendant charges,
extra food and conveyance
expenses
75,000/-
c) Towards medical expenses 3,88,969/-
d) Loss of income during laid 75,000/-
up period (12500 x 6)
e) Loss of future earning 31,50,000/-
capacity
19
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55929
MFA No. 4909 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010378642019
f) Loss of future amenities and
happiness.
1,00,000/-
g) Towards future medical 3,50,000/-
expenses
TOTAL 42,88,969/-
COMPENSATION
AWARDED BY THE
TRIBUNAL
18,74,969/-
ENHANCED 24,14,000/-
COMPENSATION
13. Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to a total
compensation of Rs. 42,88,969/- along with interest at
7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till its
realization.
14. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part;
(ii) The Judgment and Award dated 12.04.2019, in
MVC No.1595/2018, passed by the XIX Addl.
SCJ & MACT, Bangalore, is modified, enhancing
20
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55929
MFA No. 4909 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010378642019
the compensation to Rs.42,88,969/- along with
interest at 7.5% per annum.
(iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award
of the learned Tribunal remains undisturbed.
(iv) The respondent No.1/Insurance company is
directed to deposit the enhanced compensation
with interest applicable thereon, as awarded by
the learned Tribunal within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
(v) On such deposit of compensation, the same
shall be released in favour of the
appellant/claimant, on filing of an appropriate
application for withdrawal of the enhanced
amount.
(vi) The Registry is directed to draw the modified
Award accordingly.
(vii) The Registry is directed transmit a copy of this
judgment to the concerned Tribunal, along with
its records.
21
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55929
MFA No. 4909 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010378642019
(viii) No order as to costs.
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
KS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18
Digitally signed by
TARA VITASTA GANJU
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
22