The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13686 MFA No. 7994 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7994 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. SRINIVAS S/O SRI NANJAPPA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: VEGETABLE VENDOR, R/AT HOODI, THIGALARAPALYA, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 048. (BY SRI. SURESH M LATUR, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. SRI. SANTOSH KUMAR G., S/O SRI GOPALA KRISHNA, NO.161, B NARAYANAPURA, 4TH MAIN ROAD, D.V.NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 016. 2. THE MANAGER, HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.108, 109, 110, & 111, HM GENEVA HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR, NEAR K.F.C. RESTAURANT, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 V/O/D 29/01/2015- NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.10.2014 PASSED IN MVC.NO.2350/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 9TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 34TH ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13686 MFA No. 7994 of 2014 MACT-7, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ‘DISMISSAL’, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C No.2350/2013 dated 13.10.2014 by the IX Addl. Small Causes Judge and XXXIV ACMM, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore. The claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 10.03.2013 at about 8.00 p.m., he was standing on the road side with his vegetable cart on Whitefield Main Road, near Shrinidhi Hotel. At that time, a motor cycle came from Hoodi towards Whitefield with high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Due to which, he sustained communited fracture of mid shaft right leg and other grievous injuries to all over the body. As per the evidence of the doctor, he had sustained 54% disability to the limb and 27% to the whole body. The Tribunal had considered the disability at 10%, but not 27% as assessed - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13686 MFA No. 7994 of 2014 by the doctor. The Tribunal gave a finding that based on the oral version of PW.1 and PW.2 coupled with these reasons, it cannot be come to the conclusion that, due to the said road traffic accident, the claimant is suffering from permanent physical disability of 27% to the whole body as he has not produced any documents regarding follow up treatment after the discharge from the Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital to take further treatment to the said fracture injury. Furthermore, the age of the claimant is 55 years as on the date of accident as per the police and medical documents. More so, P.W.2 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that, they have not conducted a surgery to the petitioner in their Hospital and the petitioner is discharged against medical advice and he has not seen the medical documents about the treatment taken by the petitioner in any other clinic or hospital. Hence, the Tribunal had taken the disability at 10% and granted the compensation. 3. Basing on the evidence, the Tribunal had granted the compensation as per the table given below: Heads Compensation 1. Loss of future income arising out of 10% Awarded : Rs. 79,200/- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13686 MFA No. 7994 of 2014 disability 3. 2. Pain and sufferings Loss of amenities of life Loss of income during laid up period 4. : Rs. 20,000/- : Rs. 20,000/- : Rs. 12,000/- 5. Conveyance charges : Rs. 6. Attendant charges : Rs. 7. Food, nourishment and diet charges : Rs. 2,000/- 2,000/- 2,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 1,37,200/- 4. Altogether the Tribunal had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.1,37,200/-. Aggrieved thereby the appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the Tribunal had failed to grant just and reasonable compensation. When the doctor had reported the disability as 27% to the whole body, the Tribunal without any basis had taken the disability at 10%. The Tribunal ought to have taken the income at Rs.8,000/- per month, but had taken the income at an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month and the disability also taken at 10% which is contrary to the record. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had rightly considered the disability at 10% and the compensation that is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13686 MFA No. 7994 of 2014 awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable and no grounds are made out seeking enhancement. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. Considering one grievous injury, under the head of pain and sufferings, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.40,000/-. The Tribunal under the head of transport, conveyance and attendant charges had granted an amount of Rs.6,000/- which is reasonable amount and no enhancement is called for. Coming to the loss of income during laid up period, as this is an accident of the year 2013, this Court is taking the income as per the chart prepared by the Legal Service Authority at Rs. 8,000/- and for three months, it comes to an amount of (8,000X3)= Rs.24,000/-. Coming to the loss of future income, as the doctor had deposed that the disability is 54% to the limb and 24% to the whole body, 1/3rd of 54% would come to 18%. The reason that is given by the Tribunal to consider it at 10% disability, this Court finds that it is without any basis. Hence, the disability is taken at 18% i.e., (8,000x12×11×18/100)= Rs.1,90,080. Towards loss of amenities, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.30,000/-. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13686 MFA No. 7994 of 2014 8. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. MEKALA Vs. M. MALATHI AND ANOTHER, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Legal Expenses. 9. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: Heads Compensation Awarded by Tribunal 1. Loss of future income : Rs. 79,200/- (8,000x12×11×18/100) Compensati on Awarded by this Court 1,90,080/- 2. Pain and sufferings 3. Loss of amenities of life : Rs. : Rs. 20,000/- 20,000/- 40,000/- 30,000/- 4. Loss of income during laid up period (8,000X3) 5. Conveyance charges 6. Attendant charges 7. Food, nourishment and diet charges : Rs. 12,000/- 24,000/- : Rs. : Rs. : Rs. 2,000/- 2,000/- 2,000/- 2,000/- 2,000/- 2,000/- 8. Legal charges : Rs. : Rs. Enhanced compensation : Rs. TOTAL - 10,000/- 1,37,200/- 3,00,080/- Rs.1,62,880/- All together, the claimant is entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.3,00,080/-. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is Allowed-in-part by enhancing the compensation amount from an amount of Rs.1,37,200/- to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13686 MFA No. 7994 of 2014 Rs.3,00,080/-. The compensation amount shall be paid by the insurance company. i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ii) The respondent No.2 - insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security. iii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. iv) No costs. v) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5