- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26981 MFA No. 3966 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3966 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. K.D. CHENGAPPA S/O K.K DEVAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS, 1. SMT. ANITHA W/O LATE K.D. CHENGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 2. KUMARI SPOORTHI K.C D/O LATE K.D. CHENGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, 3. KUMARI SNEHA K.C D/O LATE K.D. CHENGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.33, VIJAYALAKSHMI EXTENSION, BHAGALAGUNTE, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE - 73. THE APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. ANITHA. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. H.B. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26981 MFA No. 3966 of 2015 AND: 1. M/S BHARATI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, FRIDGE QUADRA NO.30, 2ND FLOOR, HEBBALA ROAD, BANGALORE - 24. 2. SRI. RANGANATHA MAJOR, S/O RAMAPA, NO. 164, 5TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, NEAR GEETHA SCHOOL PARIMALA NAGAR, YESHAVANTHAPURA, BANGALORE - 22. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 10.04.2018, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.3.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.5100/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, 26TH ACMM, (SCCH-09), BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26981 MFA No. 3966 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 17th March 2015 in M.V.C No.5100/2011 passed by the learned Judge, Court of Small Causes & XXVI ACMM (SCCH-09), Bangalore (for short `Tribunal'), for enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 20.07.2011, at about 7.20 P.M., the petitioner met with an accident at T.Dasarahalli, Bangalore, due to rash and negligent driving of a Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-17-A-1408 by its driver. As a result, claimant sustained fracture of L-3 Vertebrae and other injuries. He took treatment as an in-patient and he has suffered permanent disability. 4. The claimant was aged about 45 years and was working as a Supervisor in Lion Security Agency, earning Rs.10,000/- per month. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.20 Lakhs. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26981 MFA No. 3966 of 2015 5. During the pendency of the claim petition, the claimant died and his legal heirs were brought on record to continue the proceedings. 6. Respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending Lorry. Respondent No.2 has remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 filed a written statement denying the contents of the claim petition and denied its liability to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues. 8. The claimants to prove their case examined the daughter of the deceased claimant as P.W.1 and also examined the doctor who treated the deceased during his life time as P.W.2. Claimants got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P20. Respondent No.1 examined one witness as R.W.1 and marked Ex.R1. 9. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, held that the accident occured due to the rash and negligent driving of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26981 MFA No. 3966 of 2015 Lorry by its driver. It appears that, during the course of the trial before the Tribunal, the legal heirs contended that the death of the original claimant was due to the injuries sustained in the accident. However, the Tribunal did not accept this claim, as it was not proven. The Tribunal awarded a global compensation of ₹30,000 under the head of 'medical and incidental expenses and loss of income during the period of treatment.' The same is challenged in the present appeal for enhancement. 10. The learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the amount compensation awarded is inadequate. The Tribunal has not considered for awarding compensation under the head 'loss of estate'. He was an ex-service man and was also working as Supervisor at the time of accident and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. These facts were not considered by the Tribunal. In support of his contention, learned Counsel relied mainly on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Ltd. Vs. Kahlon1 and submitted that in the above said judgment, the 1 1 2021 ACJ 2576 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26981 MFA No. 3966 of 2015 Hon'ble Apex Court considered the salary as well as other salary benefits that could be earned by the deceased, had he survived after the accident and injuries sustained in the said case. He also relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mangala and another Vs. A.Ganesh and another.2 11. The learned counsel for respondent No.1–Insurer contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. He further submitted that the principles of law laid down in the case of Kahlon (supra), are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the nature of injuries and the employment involved were entirely different. In the present matter, the claimants failed to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000 per month and also receiving a pension, as claimed. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. The facts of the accident is not in dispute. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the said findings of the Tribunal. The only question that arises for determination is, 2 2022 ACJ 2059 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26981 MFA No. 3966 of 2015 whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation? 13. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment at paras No.16 to 18 discussed in detail about the facts of the case and reasons to award compensation under other heads. 14. The legal heirs of deceased claimant contended that he was working as a Supervisor in Lions Security Agency and on perusal of the material produced before the Court, there is no record to show that he was serving in the said Institution and earning Rs.10,000/- per month as a Security Supervisor. It was also submitted that he was an ex-serviceman and was drawing pension but there is no record to show that he was drawing a pension by working as an ex-serviceman. The claimants examined the doctor-P.W.2 who in his evidence has stated that deceased claimant was treated conservatively and he was admitted as in-patient for 11 days from 21.07.2011 to 01.08.2011 and he was discharged after recovery with an advice to take bed rest for five weeks. He also opined that the deceased would have recovered from the injuries and that those injuries would not have caused his death. The Tribunal, in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26981 MFA No. 3966 of 2015 its discussion, considered this fact and specifically noted that there was no material on record to show that the deceased had undergone treatment after being discharged from the hospital. 15. Admittedly, there is no material on record to establish that the deceased claimant was a permanent employee of Lion Security Agency, working as a Security Supervisor, or that he lost his income during the treatment period. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that he was a Ex-serviceman or was receiving a pension. Further in the decision of Kahlon referred to supra, the facts of the said case were totally different. The victim in that case became 100% disabled and was admitted as an inpatient in the hospital for six months. He continued undergoing treatment until his death. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he was unable to work and resigned from his job. He left behind an unmarried daughter and became wheelchair-bound. Considering these circumstances, certain monetary benefits to which he would have been entitled had he not sustained injuries in the accident were calculated and awarded. However, such factors are completely absent in the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26981 MFA No. 3966 of 2015 present case. Therefore, the law laid down in the case of Kahlon has no application to the facts of the present case. 16. Even if we assume that the deceased claimant was required to take bed rest for five weeks and that did not attend work during that period, he must have lost the said income. This can be taken into account to enhance the compensation. However, there is no material on record to show that due to injuries sustained in the accident, he had to resign or that his employer removed him from service. Therefore, he is not entitled towards future prospects as calculated in the Kahlon's case. 17. However, considering the material available on record, the claimant is entitled to marginal enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part; (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 17.03.2015 passed in M.V.C.No.5100/2011, by the learned Judge, Court of Small Causes & MACT (SCCH-09), Bangalore, is modified; - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26981 MFA No. 3966 of 2015 (iii) Claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till it's realisation; (iv) Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said amount within a period of four weeks. (v) The remaining portion of the order of the Tribunal is not disturbed. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT: BHK