[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Amjad @ Syed Amjad vs M/S Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance ... on 7 April, 2026

                                             -1-
                                                        NC: 2026:KHC:18757
                                                     MFA No. 10160 of 2018


                   HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

                                           BEFORE

                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10160 OF 2018 (MV-I)

                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI AMJAD @ SYED AMJAD
                   S/O LATE MEHABOOB BASHA
                   AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
                   R/AT NO.98, 4TH CROSS
                   DEVARAJEEVANAHALLI
                   MODI ROAD
                   BANGALORE - 4

                                                              ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI H B SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed   AND:
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH     1.    M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
COURT OF                 INSURANCE CO. LTD.
KARNATAKA
                         BY ITS MANAGER
                         NO.132, BALAJI SOVEREIGN
                         2ND FLOOR, BRIGADE ROAD
                         NEAR BRIGADE TOWER
                         BANGALORE - 25

                   2.    SRI S SATISH SINGH
                         MAJOR
                         S/O DR. B SEETHARAM SINGH
                         R/AT NO.325,
                         SRI SAIKRUPA, 707 MIG
                                  -2-
                                                NC: 2026:KHC:18757
                                          MFA No. 10160 of 2018


 HC-KAR




     1ST MAIN ROAD, 4TH PHASE
     YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
     BANGALORE - 64

                                      ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H S LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O DT.16.10.24, NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)


      THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.07.2018 PASSED
IN   MVC     NO.2201/2010        ON    THE     FILE   OF    THE    III
ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MACT, BANBGALORE AND ETC.

      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 appellant/claimant seeking

enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the

judgment and award dated 07.07.2018 passed in MVC

No.2201/2010 by the III Additional Judge and MACT, Bangalore

(for short, 'Tribunal').

NC: 2026:KHC:18757

HC-KAR

2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with

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

final disposal.

3. Heard Sri H B Somapur, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri H S Lingaraju, learned counsel for respondent

No.1.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant

submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in ignoring

the vital facts and the evidence on record. It is submitted that

injured was aged about 26 years and coolie by avocation. It is

further submitted that PW5 has recorded a clear opinion in his

evidence with regard to the difficulty faced by the appellant/

injured and assessed the disability to the extent of 55% to a

particular limb and 18.5% to the whole body. However,

ignoring the said evidence, the Tribunal has awarded meager

compensation under the head of "loss of future earning due to

disability". It is admitted that doctor has clearly deposed that

the injured needs some assistance since he is unable to walk

properly, unable to continue his avocation and unable to sit in

cross legged position. Considering this, the loss of income

NC: 2026:KHC:18757

HC-KAR

during the treatment period should be for a period of one year.

It is also submitted that the injured was aged about 26 years

and because of his limping due to disability, he has lost the

marriage prospects. Hence, the compensation under the said

head is also required to be awarded. Hence, he seeks to

enhance the compensation appropriately by allowing the

appeal.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.1 supports the impugned judgment and award

of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal taking note of the

injuries suffered by the injured has rightly assessed the

disability at 16% and awarded just compensation. It is

submitted that the Tribunal considered 3 months rest period

after the treatment and awarded Rs.9,000/- under the head of

'loss of income during the laid-up period' and the said finding of

the Tribunal is based on the evidence available on record and it

does not call for any interference. It is also submitted that

insofar as marriage prospects is concerned, the appellant has

not adduced any evidence to substantiate the said contention.

NC: 2026:KHC:18757

HC-KAR

Hence, the same cannot be entertained. Hence, he seeks to

dismiss the appeal.

6. I have heard the arguments on both sides and

perused the material available on record. The records indicate

that the appellant met with road accident on 14.02.2010. He

was provided treatment at different hospitals including at St.

John's Hospital, Bangalore. The records further indicate that the

appellant was treated as an inpatient for a period of 18 days

and underwent treatment. Ex.P11 - Wound Certificate indicate

the following injuries:

"1. Head injury - Abrasion over right side of face and chin.

Court Brain: contusion of Corpus callosum, fracture right forntal bone with pneumo cephalus.

2. Tenderness, swelling and deformity over left thigh.

X-ray of Left femur - closed fracture shaft left femur.

3. Tenderness, swelling and deformity over left ankle rejoin. X-ray of left ankle region - left trimalleolar ankle, fracture with ankle subluxation.

NC: 2026:KHC:18757

HC-KAR

4. Multiple abrasions over chest, left upper limb and right lower limb."

7. In order to prove the claim, the appellant examined

himself as PW1 and also examined Dr. K. T. Thomas as PW5

and got marked the Exhibits. Whereas the respondent did not

adduce any evidence. The Tribunal considering the oral and

documentary evidence, assessed the income at Rs.3,000/- per

month, assessed the disability at 16% and awarded total

compensation of Rs.3,38,800/-. It is to be noticed that the

appellant has made assertion that he was aged about 26 years

at the time of accident and coolie by avocation. However, no

proof of income was placed before the Tribunal to substantiate

the claim for income. In the absence of proof of income, his

income is notionally reassessed at Rs.5,500/- per month

placing reliance on the chart prepared by the KSLSA. Insofar as

disability is concerned, PW5 in his evidence before the Tribunal

has clearly stated that he has examined the injured on

11.02.2011. On examination, he noticed the following facts:

"The patient was limping on the (L) side and walking with support. Squatting with great difficulty.

NC: 2026:KHC:18757

HC-KAR

Shortening of (L) leg by 3/4", (L) hip flexion was only 100o with rotation restricted by 10 - 15o. (L) knee flexion was restricted by 15 - 20o with degenerative changes in the knee joint. (L) ankle movements was only 10o - dorsi and plantar flexion."

8. After noticing the difficulties faced by the injured,

PW5 has assessed the disability at 55% to the particular limb

and 18.5% to the whole body. Ignoring the aforesaid evidence,

the Tribunal assessed the disability at 16%. In my considered

view, there is no justification for doing so. Hence, the disability

is reassessed at 18% for the purpose of determination of

compensation.

9. Insofar as the contention of the counsel for the

appellant that the appellant is entitled for compensation under

the head of 'loss of income during laid-up period' for at least

one year and the same cannot be accepted in view of the

absence of evidence. Similarly, the claim for compensation for

'loss of marriage prospects' also cannot be accepted in the

absence of any acceptable evidence before the Court. Merely on

the basis of observation of PW5 in his affidavit that the injured

NC: 2026:KHC:18757

HC-KAR

is facing difficulty in walking and sitting cannot be a ground to

award compensation under the head of 'loss of marriage

prospects' of the injured. In the absence of such evidence, the

compensation cannot be awarded.

10. Having reassessed the income and disability and

taking note of the fact that the injured has been provided

treatment at St. John's Hospital, Bangalore for a period of 18

days and he has suffered head injury, fracture etc., as referred

in Ex.P11, I am of the considered view that the compensation

on other heads are required to be reassessed appropriately and

the same are reassessed as under:

Compensation Compensation Sl.

              Heads               awarded by   re-determined
No.
                                    Tribunal    by this Court
 1    Loss of future earning         98,000.00   2,01,960.00
      due      to     disability
      (5500x12x17x18%)
 2    Pain and suffering             50,000.00     60,000.00
 3    Loss of amenities              25,000.00     50.000.00
 4    Food,       nourishment,       30,000.00     30,000.00
      conveyance, attendant
      charges etc.
 5    Medical expenses             1,26,800.00   1,26,800.00
 6    Loss of income during           9,000.00     22,000.00
      laid-up period (5500x4)
            Total                 3,38,800.00 4,90,760.00

                                                         NC: 2026:KHC:18757



HC-KAR




      Thus,    the   appellant    would       be    entitled      to   a   total

compensation of Rs.4,90,760/- as against Rs.3,38,800/-

awarded by the Tribunal.

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

following:

ORDER

a) The appeal is allowed in part.

b) The impugned judgment and award dated

07.07.2018 passed by the Tribunal in

M.V.C.No.2201/2010 is modified to an extent that

the appellant-claimant would be entitled to total

compensation of Rs.4,90,760/- as against

Rs.3,38,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.

c) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at

the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till

realisation excluding delayed period of 56 days.

d) The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit

the enhanced compensation amount with accrued

interest before the Tribunal within a period of six

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18757

HC-KAR

weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy

of this judgment.

e) The rest of the judgment and award of the Tribunal