[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Lohith K M vs Bajaj Allianz General on 6 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:13778
MFA No. 1729 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1729 OF 2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI LOHITH K.M
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
S/O LATE MUDDAIAH
R/AT NO.6/4, 2ND FLOOR
4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN ROAD
MARUTHI EXTENSION
GAYATHRI NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 021.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VASANTHA LAKSHMI H.V, ADV.)
AND:
1. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NO.509, 1ST FLOOR
SOUTH END MAIN ROAD
9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
Digitally EAST MARENAHALLI ROAD
signed by
NANDINI M S BANGALORE - 560 069
Location: REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
HIGH COURT
OF 2. SMT M.C. KUSUMA DEVI
KARNATAKA
MAJOR IN AGE
R/O NO.1205, 1ST FLOOR
19TH CROSS, NEAR NALAPAKA HOTEL
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010.
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NO.3, KENI BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR
1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 009
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:13778
MFA No. 1729 of 2020
HC-KAR
4. SRI BINOY MATHEW
MAJOR IN AGE
S/O SRI K.S. MATHAI
KALAKUNNEL NEKKILADY VLG
MARDALA PSOT PUTTUR TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 570 030.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.S. JAGADISH, ADV., FOR R-1;
V/O DTD:23.06.2022 NOTICE TO R-2 & R-4 D/W;
SRI ASHOK N. PATIL, ADV., FOR R-3)
THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.02.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.2273/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE
JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-5), PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
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 claimant seeking enhancement
of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award
dated 02.11.2019 passed in MVC.No.2273/2016 by the Court of
VIII Addl. Small Causes Judge & MACT, Bengaluru (for short,
'Tribunal').
NC: 2026:KHC:13778
HC-KAR
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. Smt. Vasantha Lakshmi, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave
error in not awarding any compensation under the head of loss
of future income due to disability, despite there being sufficient
oral and documentary evidence on record. It is submitted that
the appellant was working as an Engineer and was earning
Rs.38,000/-as salary. However, the Tribunal has erred in
considering the monthly income a Rs.8,000/-. It is submitted
that the award of compensation by the Tribunal under the head
future medical expenses and amenities is very meager. Hence,
she seeks to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation
appropriately.
4. Per contra, Sri P.S.Jagadish, learned counsel for
respondent no.3 has vehemently opposed the appeal and
submits that PW1 vehemently opposed the appeal and submits
that appellant has examined himself as PW-1 and clearly
deposed before the Tribunal that after the accident he has
NC: 2026:KHC:13778
HC-KAR
resumed the work and continued to work with the said
employer and his salary has increased. Hence, award of any
compensation under the head of loss of future income due to
disability would not arise. It is submitted that award of
compensation by the Tribunal on all other heads is on a higher
side. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent and
meticulously perused the material available on record.
6. The only point that would arise for consideration in
this appeal is :
"Whether the judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal calls for any interference?"
7. The appellant met with a road accident on
07.07.2017 and he was provided treatment at Columbia Asia
Hospital, Yeshwanthapura, Bengaluru. The records indicate that
the appellant sustained the following injuries as is evident from
Ex.P-3 - wound certificate and Ex.P-8 - discharge summary.
"Puncture wound present mid third of the right leg,
displaced comminuted fracture of shaft of right tibia and
NC: 2026:KHC:13778
HC-KAR
fibula and blunt injury to the chest, for which, he was
undergone spinal anesthesia external fixate application
was applied for the right leg, he was operated with
closed reduction and internal fixation, right tibia and MA
nailing."
8. The oral evidence and the medical records indicate
that the appellant was hospitalized on 07.07.2017 to
10.07.2017 and underwent surgery. PW-2 assessed his
disability at 15%. In order to prove the income, the appellant
has produced Ex.P-13 - salary certificate which indicate that the
appellant was drawing Rs.38,000/- as on the date of accident.
It is to be noticed that the appellant examined himself as PW-1
and deposed before the Tribunal that he has continued with the
same employment and his salary has increased, which has
been considered by the Tribunal and refused to grant any
compensation under the head of loss of income due to
disability. In my considered view, there is no error in the said
finding of the Tribunal which calls for interference.
9. Taking note of the oral testimony of PW-1 & 2 and
other medical records, I am of the considered view that the
Tribunal has erred in awarding meager compensation on the
NC: 2026:KHC:13778
HC-KAR
head of loss of amenities and loss of income during the laid up
period. It is to be noticed that PW-2 in his examination-in-chief
has clearly deposed that the appellant is required to undergo
another surgery and approximate cost of the said surgery is
indicated at Rs.60,000/-. However, the Tribunal has awarded
only Rs.20,000/- under the head of future medical expenses,
which is required to be enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. Further more,
the compensation under the head of loss of amenities is
required to be enhanced at Rs.50,000/- as against Rs.20,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal. Similarly, the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.8,000/- under the head loss of earning during treatment
period. Considering the admissions of the appellant in the
hospital and the treatment provided to him, I am of the view
that the appellant would be entitled for compensation of
Rs.30,000/- as against Rs.8,000/-. The compensation with
respect to the remaining heads remains unaltered. Thus, the
appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.3,17,000/- as against Rs.2,45,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
NC: 2026:KHC:13778
HC-KAR
10. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
a) Appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award dated
02.11.2019 passed by the Tribunal is
modified to an extent that the appellant-
claimant would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.3,17,000/- as against
Rs.2,45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation shall carry at the
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
realisation.
d) The respondent No.3 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.
NC: 2026:KHC:13778
HC-KAR
e) The rest of the judgment and award of the
Tribunal with respect to apportionment,
deposit and release shall remain unaltered.
f) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
KK
