- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2597-DB MFA No. 941 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 941 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. LINGARAJU, S/O LATE SUBBARAJU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 2. KUM. MONISHA L., D/O LINGARAJU K., AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 3. MR. MUKESH L., S/O LINGARAJU K., AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT No.365, 4TH CROSS, CHIKKAMARANAHALLI, DEVASANDRA, BENGALURU-560054. …APPELLANTS (BY MS. KALPANA P. V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2ND FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2597-DB MFA No. 941 of 2024 HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560068, POLICY ISSUED BY ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT HOUSE No.414, VEER SAVARKAR MARG, NEAR SIDHI VINAYAKA TEMPLE PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-400034, REPT. BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR/OWNER, M/S INFRATHONN INFRASTRUCTURE LT, No.619/7, ARISHINAKUNTE, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B. C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.06.2023 PASSED IN MVC No.536/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-11), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION . THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2597-DB MFA No. 941 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) Heard Ms. Kalpana P.V., learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri B.C. Shivanne Gowda, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. The claimants in MVC No.536/2022 have preferred the present appeal, calling in question the judgment and award dated 15.06.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal'), and seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded. 3. The appellants/claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of the death of one Smt.Lakshmi, who succumbed to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident involving a Honda Dio scooter bearing Reg.No.KA-04-JW-9744 and a Tata Prima LX tipper bearing Reg.No.KA-52-A-7234, which occurred on 18.12.2021 at about 9.50 p.m. It is pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending tipper. It is further pleaded that, prior to the accident, the deceased was working - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2597-DB MFA No. 941 of 2024 as a housekeeper and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. 3.1 Respondent No.1, upon service of notice, filed objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, including the age, occupation, and income of the deceased, but admitted the insurance policy. It is further contended that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-52-A-7234. 3.2 The claimants examined PW.1 to PW.4 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.25. The respondents did not adduce any oral evidence; however, Ex.R.1 was marked on their behalf. 3.3 The Tribunal, having held that the income of the deceased was not established, assessed the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per month, based on the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA). The Tribunal further awarded compensation under the other conventional heads. 4. Ms. Kalpana P.V., learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants, submits that the deceased was working - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2597-DB MFA No. 941 of 2024 as a housekeeper and was drawing salary from different companies/employers. Learned counsel, placing reliance on Exs.P.8-10, P.16, and P.20-21, submits that the deceased was, in all, earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month and, therefore, the monthly income ought to be assessed at Rs.20,000/- per month. 5. Sri B.C. Shivanne Gowda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1–Insurance Company, submits that the Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on record, has rightly assessed the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per month. It is contended that the salary certificates produced at Exs.P.8- 10, P.16, and P.20-21 have not been proved in accordance with law and, therefore, cannot be relied upon in the absence of examination of the authors of the said certificates. Learned counsel further submits that, having regard to the totality of the facts and evidence on record, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per month. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2597-DB MFA No. 941 of 2024 7. The occurrence of the accident, the involvement of the offending vehicle, and the liability of respondent No.1 are not in dispute. The compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also not in dispute. The sole issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is with regard to the correctness of the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal. 8. The Tribunal, in the absence of proved evidence, assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the claimants contends that the monthly income ought to have been assessed at Rs.20,000/- per month by placing reliance on the salary certificates produced at Exs.P.8-10, P.16, and P.20-21. The Tribunal has noted that the authors of the said salary certificates were not examined. It is undisputed that the authors of the salary certificates produced at Exs.P.8-10, P.16, and P.20-21 were not examined. In the absence of examination of the authors of the said certificates, or production of any other corroborative evidence in support thereof, the finding recorded by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. In the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2597-DB MFA No. 941 of 2024 absence of proved income, the notional income assessed by the Tribunal is to be accepted. 9. In the light of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal warranting interference with the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15