SHANMUGAM K vs THE BRANCH MANAGER

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60184
MFA No. 5251 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010354112015



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE


THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5251 OF 2015(MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SHANMUGAM K.,
S/O KRISHNAN
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
NO.4, SHIVASUNDARAM APARTMENT,
GROUND FLOOR, PATALAMMA ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE.

ALSO AT: NO.1/169,
KRISHNAPALYAM, BOJIPURAM,
SHOOLAGIRI, HOSUR TALUK
KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT - 635 117
TAMIL NADU.

ALSO AT: NO.47,
L.N. PURAM,
TH
9 CROSS ROAD,
BENGALURU- 560 021.
…APPELLANT










SIGN

(BY SMT.LAKSHMI G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER
M/S. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.
ST
NO.41, 1 FLOOR,
CRISTRI COMPLEX,
LAVELLE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. MR. SOMASHEKAR
PROP. M/s SRST & CO. ,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60184
MFA No. 5251 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010354112015


ND
NO.154, 2 CROSS,
NEW THARAGPET,
BENGALURU - 560 002.

3. THE BRANCH MANAGER
M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
NO.186, GROUND FLOOR,
RAGHAVENDRA PLAZA,
ST
1 CROSS, WILSON GARDEN,
HOUSUR MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 047.

4. K.GANESH PRABHU
S/O B.JANARDHAN
TH
NO.9/7, 6 CROSS,
K.N.EXTENSION,
OPP: JAIN TEMPLE ROAD,
YESHWANTHPURA,
BENGALURU.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI K.VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
V/C/O/DTD 12.03.2026 APPEAL AGAINST R4 IS DISMISSED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.12.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.60/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE
JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING , THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60184
MFA No. 5251 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010354112015


ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 22.12.2014
passed by XIII Additional Small Cause Judge & Member-MACT,
Bengaluru, in MVC no.60/2012, this appeal is by claimant for
enhancement of compensation.


2. Brief facts as per memorandum of appeal and
impugned award are that at 4:30 a.m. on 27.10.2010, when
claimant was proceeding towards Bengaluru in Lorry no.KA-01-
C-4630 as cleaner, it met with accident on NH-46, when it
dashed against another Lorry. In accident, claimant sustained
grievous injuries and despite treatment, he did not recover fully
and sustained loss of earning capacity. Claiming compensation,
he filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 ( MV Act ) against owner and insurer of both Lorries.


3. Claim petition was opposed on all grounds. Based
on pleadings, Tribunal framed following:
ISSUES:
1. Whether petitioner proves that he has sustained
injuries in the motor vehicle accident that
occurred on 27.10.2010 at about 4.30 a.m., on
NH-46, Chennai to Krishnagiri, near Concordia
School, Bargur, within the jurisdiction of Bargur
traffic police station on account of rash and
negligent driving of the Swaraj Mazda lorry

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60184
MFA No. 5251 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010354112015


bearing registration No.KA-01 C-4630 by its
driver as alleged in the petition?

2. Whether petitioner is entitled to the
compensation? If so, what is the quantum and
from whom?

3. What order?



4. Claimant along with Dr.Chethan A., deposed as
PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P14 and
respondents examined one witness as RW.1 but did not mark
any document.


5. On consideration, Tribunal held that accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry in which he
was travelling as negligent and held claimant was held entitled
for Rs.4,20,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. from insurer of said
Lorry. Claim petition insofar as owner and insurer of other Lorry
was dismissed. Dissatisfied with quantum, this appeal is filed.


6. Perusal of grounds urged in memorandum of appeal
would reveal that claimant is dissatisfied with inadequate
compensation towards pain and suffering, loss of income during
laid-up period, incidental expenses, medical expenses and
future loss of income.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60184
MFA No. 5251 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010354112015




7. Sri O Mahesh, learned counsel submitted that
impugned award was passed only against owner and insurer of
Lorry in which claimant was travelling and there was no award
passed against owner of insurer of other Lorry.


8. Sri AN Krishnaswamy, learned counsel opposed
appeal for enhancement of compensation by contending that
while passing impugned award, Tribunal considered entire
material on record and assessed compensation under each of
heads separately, leaving no scope for enhancement.


9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgment, award and record.


10. Since appeal is by claimant for enhancement of
compensation, point that arises for consideration is:
Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation as prayed?


11. Occurrence of accident, claimant sustaining
grievous injuries resulting loss of earning capacity and being
entitled for compensation are not in dispute.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60184
MFA No. 5251 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010354112015



12. Though claimant stated that as on date of accident,
he was 18 years of age, working as a cleaner and earning
Rs.8,000/- per month, he did not substantiate same by
producing any material. In absence, Tribunal assessed his
notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month and applied multiplier
of '18' corresponding to his age. However, notional income for
year 2010 being Rs.5,500/- per month, Tribunal would not be
justified in taking it at Rs.6,000/-. At same time, Tribunal erred
in not adding future prospects to monthly income as per
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Erudhaya Priya v. State
Express Transport Corporation Ltd. reported in 2020 SCC
OnLine SC 601. As per medical evidence, claimant sustained
fracture of right femur as well as fracture of right clavicle.
PW.2, who had assessed disability stated about limb disability
at 37% and whole body disability at 12%. But Tribunal
considered loss of earning capacity at 10%. Considering age
and occupation, assessment by Tribunal would not be justified.
It is found appropriate to consider disability at 12% itself. Thus,
compensation towards future loss of income would be :

(Rs.5,500/- + 40%) X 12 X 18 X 12% = Rs.1,99,584/-

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60184
MFA No. 5251 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010354112015




13. Claimant sustained fracture of femur as well as
clavicle. Normally for fracture to structural bone compensation
of Rs.40,000/- is granted with Rs.10,000/- added to each
additional fracture. Therefore, award towards pain and suffering
is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- . Taking monthly income at
Rs.6,000/-, Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- as towards loss of
income during laid up period. Considering normal duration for
recuperation in case of fracture, assessment of compensation
towards loss of income during treatment period would not call
for interference. Likewise, for in-patient treatment period of
about five days, Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards
conveyance and other incidental expenses. Though it is
contented that claimant had produced medical bills for
Rs.2,00,000/-, Tribunal awarded only Rs.80,000/- by
discounting some bills for want of corroborating prescriptions.
From examination of bills, prescriptions and period of
treatment, it is seen that Tribunal has on detailed examination,
rightly awarded Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses by
excluding duplication of claims on basis of advance paid
receipts. Thus, compensation towards medical expenses would

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60184
MFA No. 5251 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010354112015


retain at Rs.80,000/-. Considering need for removal of
implants, Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards future
medical expenses and same would be justified. Apart from
above, Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of
amenities and another Rs.50,000 towards physical impairment,
which would not be justified. But even if there is scope for
award of compensation towards loss of marriage prospects etc.,
Thus, award of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of physical
impairment is ordered to be adjusted towards marriage
prospects. In view of above, point for consideration is answered
partly in affirmative .


14. Consequently, following:
ORDER

i. Appeal is allowed in part ;

ii. Judgment and award dated 22.12.2014
passed by XIII Additional Small Cause
Judge & Member-MACT, Bengaluru, in
MVC no.60/2012 is modified ;

iii. Claimant is held entitled for
Rs.4,99,584/- rounded off to
Rs.5,00,000/- , needless to state that

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60184
MFA No. 5251 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010354112015


claimant would be entitled for same with
interest at 8% p.a. from date of petition
till deposit excluding period of 111 days
being delay in filing this appeal.

iv. Insurer to deposit balance compensation
within six weeks;

v. On deposit, entire compensation with
interest is ordered to be released in
favour of claimant.

Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE



AV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21