[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri K Venkatesh vs Bmtc Control Office on 23 March, 2026

                                                -1-
                                                           NC: 2026:KHC:16163
                                                         M.F.A. No.4374/2020


                   HC-KAR




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                            DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                                            BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                    MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4374/2020 (MV-I)


                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI. K. VENKATESH
                   S/O KASHINATHAN
                   AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
                   R/AT NO.207, 6TH SQUARE
                   SSM ROAD, MURPHY TOWN
Digitally signed   HALASURU HAL 2ND STAGE
by ARSHIFA
BAHAR KHANAM       BENGALURU 08.
                                                                 ...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADV.,)
KARNATAKA

                   AND:

                   BMTC CONTROL OFFICE
                   SARIGE BHAVAN
                   SHANTHINAGAR
                   K H ROAD, DOUBLE ROAD
                   BANGALORE 27.
                                                               ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SMT. RADHA B.P. ADV.,)


                        THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
                   JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.04.2019 PASSED IN MVC
                   NO.4409/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII
                   ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU
                   SCCH-4,   PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
                   COMPENSATION      AND     SEEKING    ENHANCEMENT      OF
                   COMPENSATION.
                                  -2-
                                              NC: 2026:KHC:16163
                                            M.F.A. No.4374/2020


HC-KAR




    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 03.04.2019 passed in

MVC.No.4409/2018 by the Member, MACT, XVIII

Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (for

short, 'Tribunal').

2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with

the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken

up for final disposal.

3. Sri.Shripad V.Shastri, learned counsel for the

appellant-injured submits that the appellant was working

as a Security Guard and he was aged about 56 years at

the time of accident. It is submitted that the appellant-

injured sustained head injuries and was provided

treatment at NIMHANS Hospital. In order to prove the

NC: 2026:KHC:16163

HC-KAR

averments made in the claim petition, the appellant-

claimant examined himself as PW1 and two witnesses as

PWs2 and 3. It is further submitted that as per the

evidence of PW3-Doctor, the appellant is unable to

continue his work due to the disability. Hence, the

functional disability of the appellant is required to be re-

assessed at 100% and also seeks to award just and fair

compensation under all other heads by allowing the

appeal.

4. Per contra, Smt.B.P.Radha, learned counsel for

the respondent-Corporation supports the impugned

judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the

Tribunal, considering the oral evidence of PW3-Doctor,

assessed the disability at 15% and awarded just

compensation under all heads. It is further submitted that

PW3 is not a treated doctor and the injured was an in-

patient in the NIMHANS Hospital only for a period of 3

days. Hence, there cannot be any enhancement insofar as

NC: 2026:KHC:16163

HC-KAR

disability is concerned. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the

appeal.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned

counsel appearing on both the sides and meticulously

perused the material available on record including the

Tribunal records.

6. The appellant as well as the respondent-

Corporation do not dispute that in a road accident that

occurred on 17.02.2018, the appellant sustained injuries,

which are referred in the wound certificate as per Ex.P9. It

is also not in dispute that the appellant was provided with

treatment as an in-patient for 3 days in NIMHANS

Hospital. Considering the nature of treatment provided to

the appellant at NIMHANS Hospital, PW3-Doctor has

assessed the disability of the appellant at 35% to the

whole body. The perusal of the oral evidence of PW3-

Doctor indicates that PW3 has assessed the disability on

examining the appellant-injured and also based on the

NC: 2026:KHC:16163

HC-KAR

medical records placed before him; PW3 has noted the

difficulties faced by the appellant as under:

"a) Right shoulder pain-not able to carry heavy weights, Not able to work with right hand, Not able to close left eye tightly, He has difficulty in making day to day decisions, reasoning and judgment, Decreased hearing on left side.

b) Has reduced daytime alertness and require supervision of day time activities.

c) He will require assistance while walking elevations

6. He has undergone neuropsycological assessment of cognitive ability by Dr.PratibhaSharan (Nimhans) which revealed significant deficits in mental speed, focused attention, categoryfluency, planning, responseinhibition, verbal comprehension, verbal learning and memory, visuo spatial construction and visual learning, logical memory with bilateral frontal lobes, bilateral temporal lobe involvement. According to DGHS telescopic sum formula her cognitive and neurobehavioural disability amount to 38.66%."

7. Based on the afore-stated difficulty and on

examining the injured, PW3-Doctor has assessed disability

at 10% for imbalance while walking, 12% left ear

NC: 2026:KHC:16163

HC-KAR

deafness, memory disturbances at 8% and 5% for right

hand weakness, in total, he has assessed the disability at

35%. The said witness has been cross examined by the

respondent-Corporation at length, however, nothing has

been elicited in the cross examination. Admittedly, PW3 is

not a treated doctor to the appellant-injured, however, his

evidence also cannot be ignored in totality. PW3, while

arriving at disability to the whole body at 35%, has

assigned detailed reasons with regard to the difficulty

faced by the injured and treatment provided to him. In my

considered view, taking note of the oral evidence of PW3

and other medical evidence on record, the interest of

justice would be met if the disability of the injured is re-

assessed at 28% to the whole body for the purpose of

determination of compensation.

8. Admittedly, the appellant has not placed any

evidence with regard to his income. Hence, his income is

notionally re-assessed at Rs.12,500/- per month placing

reliance on the notional income chart prepared by KSLSA.

NC: 2026:KHC:16163

HC-KAR

As the appellant was aged about 56 years as on the date

of accident, the appropriate multiplier would be 9, which

has been rightly considered by the Tribunal. Hence, the

compensation under the head of loss of future income due

to disability would be as under:

Rs.12,500 x 12 x 9 x 28%=Rs.3,78,000/-.

9. Having re-assessed the income and disability

and considering the nature of injuries and treatment

provided to the appellant, I am of the considered view that

the compensation awarded under other heads is also

required to be enhanced appropriately. Hence, the

appellant would be entitled to compensation of

Rs.50,000/- towards pain & suffering; Rs.37,500/-

(Rs.12,500 X 3) towards the loss of income during laid-up

period; Rs.10,000/- towards food, conveyance,

nourishment and attendant charges; and Rs.45,000/-

towards loss of amenities in life. The compensation

awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is

NC: 2026:KHC:16163

HC-KAR

unaltered. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to

modified compensation as under:

                       HEADS                        AMOUNT
                                                    (in Rs.)
    Pain & suffering                                     50,000
    Medical expenses                                       17,000
    Loss of income during laid up period                   37,500
    Loss of future income due to disability              3,78,000
    Food, conveyance, nourishment             and          10,000
    attendant charges
    Loss of future amenities in life          and          45,000
    happiness
                      Total                              5,37,500

Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a

total compensation of Rs.5,37,500/- as against

Rs.3,16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

10. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

following:

ORDER

a) Appeal is allowed in part.

b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,37,500/- as

NC: 2026:KHC:16163

HC-KAR

against Rs.3,16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

c) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.

d) The respondent-Corporation shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.