- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18757 MFA No. 10160 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10160 OF 2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI AMJAD @ SYED AMJAD S/O LATE MEHABOOB BASHA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.98, 4TH CROSS DEVARAJEEVANAHALLI MODI ROAD BANGALORE – 4 …APPELLANT (BY SRI H B SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD. BY ITS MANAGER NO.132, BALAJI SOVEREIGN 2ND FLOOR, BRIGADE ROAD NEAR BRIGADE TOWER BANGALORE – 25 2. SRI S SATISH SINGH MAJOR S/O DR. B SEETHARAM SINGH R/AT NO.325, SRI SAIKRUPA, 707 MIG Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18757 MFA No. 10160 of 2018 1ST MAIN ROAD, 4TH PHASE YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BANGALORE – 64 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H S LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DT.16.10.24, NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.2201/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MACT, BANBGALORE AND ETC. 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 appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 07.07.2018 passed in MVC No.2201/2010 by the III Additional Judge and MACT, Bangalore (for short, ‘Tribunal’). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18757 MFA No. 10160 of 2018 2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. Heard Sri H B Somapur, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri H S Lingaraju, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in ignoring the vital facts and the evidence on record. It is submitted that injured was aged about 26 years and coolie by avocation. It is further submitted that PW5 has recorded a clear opinion in his evidence with regard to the difficulty faced by the appellant/ injured and assessed the disability to the extent of 55% to a particular limb and 18.5% to the whole body. However, ignoring the said evidence, the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation under the head of “loss of future earning due to disability”. It is admitted that doctor has clearly deposed that the injured needs some assistance since he is unable to walk properly, unable to continue his avocation and unable to sit in cross legged position. Considering this, the loss of income - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18757 MFA No. 10160 of 2018 during the treatment period should be for a period of one year. It is also submitted that the injured was aged about 26 years and because of his limping due to disability, he has lost the marriage prospects. Hence, the compensation under the said head is also required to be awarded. Hence, he seeks to enhance the compensation appropriately by allowing the appeal. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal taking note of the injuries suffered by the injured has rightly assessed the disability at 16% and awarded just compensation. It is submitted that the Tribunal considered 3 months rest period after the treatment and awarded Rs.9,000/- under the head of ‘loss of income during the laid-up period’ and the said finding of the Tribunal is based on the evidence available on record and it does not call for any interference. It is also submitted that insofar as marriage prospects is concerned, the appellant has not adduced any evidence to substantiate the said contention. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18757 MFA No. 10160 of 2018 Hence, the same cannot be entertained. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 6. I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record. The records indicate that the appellant met with road accident on 14.02.2010. He was provided treatment at different hospitals including at St. John's Hospital, Bangalore. The records further indicate that the appellant was treated as an inpatient for a period of 18 days and underwent treatment. Ex.P11 - Wound Certificate indicate the following injuries: “1. Head injury – Abrasion over right side of face and chin. Court Brain: contusion of Corpus callosum, fracture right forntal bone with pneumo cephalus. 2. Tenderness, swelling and deformity over left thigh. X-ray of Left femur – closed fracture shaft left femur. 3. Tenderness, swelling and deformity over left ankle rejoin. X-ray of left ankle region – left trimalleolar ankle, fracture with ankle subluxation. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18757 MFA No. 10160 of 2018 4. Multiple abrasions over chest, left upper limb and right lower limb.” 7. In order to prove the claim, the appellant examined himself as PW1 and also examined Dr. K. T. Thomas as PW5 and got marked the Exhibits. Whereas the respondent did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence, assessed the income at Rs.3,000/- per month, assessed the disability at 16% and awarded total compensation of Rs.3,38,800/-. It is to be noticed that the appellant has made assertion that he was aged about 26 years at the time of accident and coolie by avocation. However, no proof of income was placed before the Tribunal to substantiate the claim for income. In the absence of proof of income, his income is notionally reassessed at Rs.5,500/- per month placing reliance on the chart prepared by the KSLSA. Insofar as disability is concerned, PW5 in his evidence before the Tribunal has clearly stated that he has examined the injured on 11.02.2011. On examination, he noticed the following facts: “The patient was limping on the (L) side and walking with support. Squatting with great difficulty. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18757 MFA No. 10160 of 2018 Shortening of (L) leg by 3/4", (L) hip flexion was only 100o with rotation restricted by 10 – 15o. (L) knee flexion was restricted by 15 - 20o with degenerative changes in the knee joint. (L) ankle movements was only 10o – dorsi and plantar flexion.” 8. After noticing the difficulties faced by the injured, PW5 has assessed the disability at 55% to the particular limb and 18.5% to the whole body. Ignoring the aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal assessed the disability at 16%. In my considered view, there is no justification for doing so. Hence, the disability is reassessed at 18% for the purpose of determination of compensation. 9. Insofar as the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the appellant is entitled for compensation under the head of ‘loss of income during laid-up period’ for at least one year and the same cannot be accepted in view of the absence of evidence. Similarly, the claim for compensation for ‘loss of marriage prospects’ also cannot be accepted in the absence of any acceptable evidence before the Court. Merely on the basis of observation of PW5 in his affidavit that the injured - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18757 MFA No. 10160 of 2018 is facing difficulty in walking and sitting cannot be a ground to award compensation under the head of ‘loss of marriage prospects’ of the injured. In the absence of such evidence, the compensation cannot be awarded. 10. Having reassessed the income and disability and taking note of the fact that the injured has been provided treatment at St. John’s Hospital, Bangalore for a period of 18 days and he has suffered head injury, fracture etc., as referred in Ex.P11, I am of the considered view that the compensation on other heads are required to be reassessed appropriately and the same are reassessed as under: Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation re-determined by this Court 1 Loss of future earning due to disability (5500x12x17x18%) 98,000.00 2,01,960.00 2 Pain and suffering 50,000.00 60,000.00 3 Loss of amenities 25,000.00 50.000.00 4 Food, nourishment, conveyance, attendant charges etc. 30,000.00 30,000.00 5 Medical expenses 1,26,800.00 1,26,800.00 6 Loss of income during laid-up period (5500x4) 9,000.00 22,000.00 Total 3,38,800.00 4,90,760.00 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18757 MFA No. 10160 of 2018 Thus, the appellant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,90,760/- as against Rs.3,38,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. 11. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER a) The appeal is allowed in part. b) The impugned judgment and award dated 07.07.2018 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.2201/2010 is modified to an extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,90,760/- as against Rs.3,38,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. c) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation excluding delayed period of 56 days. d) The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18757 MFA No. 10160 of 2018 weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. 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 SN