##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13463

MFA No. 898 of 2018

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 898 OF 2018 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR

AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

S/O SIDDAIAH,

YERAMARASALU VILLAGE,

DEVADURGA TALUK

RAICHUR DISTRICT,

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT

NAYANDAHALLI SLUM,

NAYANDAHALLI,

MYSORE ROAD,

BANGALORE-56

Digitally signed

by

SHARADAVANI

B …APPELLANT

Location: HIGH

(BY SRI. H.B. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

AND:

1. M/S. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.

LTD.,

BY ITS MANAGER

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13463

MFA No. 898 of 2018

HC-KAR

NO.121, THE ESTATE BUILDING,

9TH FLOOR, DICKENSON ROAD,

BENGALORE-01

2. SRI. PRITHVIN S SOMAYAJI

S/O SACHIDANANDA J

NO.152/5-13, USHANANDA,

MANGANAHALLI ROAD,

ULLALA, BANGALORE-56

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1

NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W VIDE ORDER DATED 14.10.2012)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC

NO.7757/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR

CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,

BENGALURU (SCCH-18), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM

PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT

OF COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13463

MFA No. 898 of 2018

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement

of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award

dated 22.11.2017 passed in MVC No.7757/2016 by the III

Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, 'Tribunal').

2. Sri.H.B.Somapur, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the

income of the injured as well as the disability. It is submitted

that the award of compensation on all other heads is also

contrary to the evidence on record. Hence, he seeks to

reassess the same by considering the oral and documentary

evidence on record. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

3. Per contra, Sri.B.Pradeep learned counsel appearing

for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned judgment and

award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal has erred

in awarding compensation under the head of loss of marriage

prospects as the case on hand is pertaining to two fractures. It

is submitted that the Tribunal considering the evidence has

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13463

MFA No. 898 of 2018

HC-KAR

rightly awarded the compensation, which does not call for any

interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material

available on record. I have given my anxious considerations to

the submissions advance.

5. The only point that would arise for consideration in this

appeal is:

"Whether the impugned judgment and award

passed by the Tribunal calls for any interference?".

6. The aforementioned point is answered in the

affirmative for the following reasons.

7. The parties to the proceedings do not dispute that the

appellant met with a road accident on 26.11.2016 and

sustained fracture of both bones of right leg. The pleading and

evidence on record indicates that the appellant was working as

a mason by profession and was earning Rs.800/- per day. The

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13463

MFA No. 898 of 2018

HC-KAR

Tribunal considering the evidence assessed the income of the

injured at Rs.8,500/- and assess the disability at 9%. It is to be

noticed that the appellant failed to produce any evidence with

regard to the income. In the absence of proof of income, his

income is reassessed notionally at Rs.9,500/- placing reliance

on the Notional income chart prepared by Karnataka State

Legal Services Authority.

8. Insofar as disability is concerned, PW-3 has deposed

before the Tribunal that the appellant sustained two fractur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document