Sri Lohith K M Vs Bajaj Allianz General

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:13778 MFA No. 1729 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1729 OF 2020 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

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.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI VASANTHA LAKSHMI H.V, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.509, 1ST FLOOR SOUTH END MAIN ROAD 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR EAST MARENAHALLI ROAD BANGALORE - 560 069 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶13

SMT M.C. KUSUMA DEVI MAJOR IN AGE R/O NO.1205, 1ST FLOOR 19TH CROSS, NEAR NALAPAKA HOTEL RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010.

¶14

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.3, KENI BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR 1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:13778 MFA No. 1729 of 2020

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SRI BINOY MATHEW MAJOR IN AGE S/O SRI K.S. MATHAI KALAKUNNEL NEKKILADY VLG MARDALA PSOT PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA - 570 030.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(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)

¶21

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.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

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’).

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13778 MFA No. 1729 of 2020

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13778 MFA No. 1729 of 2020

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

The only point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is :

¶37

" Whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal calls for any interference?"

¶38

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.

¶39

"Puncture wound present mid third of the right leg, displaced comminuted fracture of shaft of right tibia and

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:13778 MFA No. 1729 of 2020

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

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."

¶44

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.

¶45

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

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13778 MFA No. 1729 of 2020

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

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.

¶49

7 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:13778 MFA No. 1729 of 2020

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶53

following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

a) Appeal is allowed in part .

¶56

b) The impugned judgment and award dated 02.11.2019 passed by the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the appellantclaimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,17,000/- as against Rs.2,45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶57

c) The enhanced compensation shall carry at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.

¶58

d) The *respondent No.1 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.

¶59

*Corrected vide court order dated 17.03.2026.

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:13778 MFA No. 1729 of 2020

¶61