[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Lokesh M vs The Regional Manager on 13 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14992
MFA No. 4965 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4965 OF 2015 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI LOKESH M
S/O MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/O NO.283, S.K.I.G. 24TH BLOCK,
3RD MAIN, 6TH A CROSS,
YALAHANKA UPANAGAR, 5TH STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 064.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASHA H.C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANIL
KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER
ICICI LOMBARD GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,
"PRESTIGE CORNICHE",
NO.62/1, 2ND FLOOR, RICHMOND ROADF
Digitally BANGALORE-560 025
signed by (POLICY NO.3004/58356142/00/00 VALID FROM 19-12-
NIRMALA 2009 18-12-2010).
DEVI
Location: 2. GANESH K.S.
HIGH S/O K.N.SHESHAPPA,
COURT OF NO.265, SMIG, 17TH B BLOCK,
KARNATAKA SHIRKE APARTMENTS, 5TH PHASE,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BANGALORE-560 064.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.C SHIVANNE GOWDA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.12.2011 PASSED IN MVC
NO.4587/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII A.C.M.M & XXIV
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14992
MFA No. 4965 of 2015
HC-KAR
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC,.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The above appeal is filed by the claimant under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881 challenging the
judgment and award dated 03.12.2011 passed in
MVC.No.4587/2010 by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal XXXIV Additional, Small Causes Judge, Bangalore2,
wherein the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and
awarded a total compensation of `43,000/- together with
interest at 6% per annum. Being aggrieved by the same, the
present appeal is filed by the claimant seeking for enhancement
of compensation.
2. The findings of the Tribunal on negligence and
liability are not under challenge and the same have attained
finality. Hence, the only question that is required to be
considered in the present appeal is with regard to the adequacy
of the quantum of compensation awarded.
Hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1988'
Hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'
NC: 2026:KHC:14992
HC-KAR
3. The claimant was aged 31 years as on date of the
accident i.e. as on 29.03.2010. The claimant was stated to be
an electrician. However, no documents have been produced to
demonstrate his income. The Tribunal has assessed his income
at ₹3,000/- per month. Having regard to the date of the
accident, the notional income of the claimant is to be re-
assessed as ₹5,500/- per month.
4. The claimant sustained fracture of left clavicle, left
acromion and left glenoid. He was treated as an inpatient for 1
day and treated conservatively. The claimant produced medical
bills for a sum of ₹4,110/- and accordingly the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of ₹4,300/- towards medical expenses, food
and conveyance. 15 days was construed as the laid up period
and ₹1,500/- was awarded towards loss of income. ₹22,000/-
was awarded towards pain and agony. The Tribunal also
noticed that, PW.1 has admitted that there was no fracture and
it was only a dislocation of the left shoulder. The Doctor was
examined as PW.3 who assessed the disability at 10% to the
whole body. However, PW.3 was not the treated Doctor. The
PW.3 in the cross-examination has admitted that, the fracture
of clavicle and acromion are united. However, there was
NC: 2026:KHC:14992
HC-KAR
malunion of the left glenoid. The Tribunal awarded a sum of
₹15,000/- towards disability and ₹5,000/- towards loss of
amenities.
5. Having regard to the factual matrix as noticed
above, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is just and
proper that, a further compensation of ₹25,000/- be awarded in
full and final settlement of the claim of this appellant in the
present appeal.
6. The Tribunal had recorded a finding that the
appellant/claimant was negligent to the extent of 10% and
hence, deducted 10% of the compensation amount.
Accordingly, out of the further compensation re-assessed at
₹25,000/-, 10% is required to be deducted and hence the
appellant will be entitled to further compensation of ₹22,500/-
together with interest at 6% per annum in addition to the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
7. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;
ii) The judgment and award dated 03.12.2011
passed in MVC.No.4587/2010 by the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal XXXIV Additional,
NC: 2026:KHC:14992
HC-KAR
Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, is modified to
the extent stated herein. In all other respects,
the judgment and award of the Tribunal remains
unaltered;
iii) The appellant/claimant is entitled to further
compensation of ₹22,500/- together with
interest at 6% per annum from date of petition
till date of payment (excluding a period of 1169
days, having regard to the order dated
12.03.2026 passed in the present appeal) in
addition to the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal;
iv) Respondent No.1 - Insurer shall deposit the
compensation awarded together with accrued
interest within a period of six weeks;
v) Upon such deposit, the entire enhanced
compensation together with interest accrued
thereupon be disbursed digitally to the claimant;
vi) The Registry to draw the modified award
accordingly;
No costs.
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
PNV - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6
