SRI V VASU v. PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI

(BY SRI. H.C. BETSUR., ADVOCATE FOR R2, V/O/D 13.08.2025 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.01.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1418/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-10), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT The Tribunal passed common MVC No.1417/2022 and MVC No.1418/2022

03.01.2024 and these appeals are filed against the same. MFA No.5160/2024

2. Injured claimant petition MVC No.1417/2022 before XIV Addl. Small Causes Judge, ACMM and Member MACT, Bengaluru, it is submitted that that the claimant met with an accident on 10.12.2020 and - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6419 MFA No. 5160 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5309 of 2024 HC-KAR petition claiming compensation Rs.15,00,000/-. Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.2,60,080/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.

3. Aggrieved by the said award, he preferred an appeal and mainly contended, that he was working as a carpenter by profession and earning Rs.25,000/- per month, but the Tribunal erred in taking his income as Rs.11,000/- per month. The amount granted under other heads are meager and doctor assessed the disability of the left lower leg as 40%. However, the Tribunal has taken 8% disability and also the rate of interest is on lower side, thus requested for enhancement of the compensation.

4. Heard the arguments of both sides.

5. Though petitioner stated that he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6419 MFA No. 5160 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5309 of 2024 HC-KAR

6. Learned counsel for respondent took an objection that the petitioner is resident of Andhra Pradesh and he is working in Andhra Pradesh. As such, notional income as per the guidelines of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is not applicable to him and even in the judgment, tribunal relied upon decision of Smt.Mariyamma W/o Hucchelappa & others Vs Suyambulinga.V and Anr. in MFA No.7404/2014 dated 06.12.2022 in which, Division Bench of this court held that notional income fixed by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority cannot be considered. As such, minimum wages under Minimum Wages Act has to be taken into consideration. Accordingly, the Tribunal has taken Rs.11,000/- p.m., towards income of the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon a citation reported in MFA No.103627/2016 dated

03.07.2023 in case of Wasim S/O. Abdulmajid Havaldar Vs Liyakatali Tayabji Soudagar and Anr., in which it is stated that when there is no income proof, the - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:6419 MFA No. 5160 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5309 of 2024 HC-KAR notional income as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is to be considered. The main contention of the respondent counsel is that the petitioner instead of filing claim petition before the courts in Andhra Pradesh has filed it before the court in Karnataka. As such, they are not entitled for the notional income as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The objection regarding the jurisdiction ought to have been taken by the Insurance Company immediately after filing of the petition before the Tribunal at the earliest point of time, but they failed to do so. Moreover, the claimants are permitted to file their claim petition anywhere in the country according to their convenience, as such they opted to file the application before Small Causes Judge and MACT Bangalore. Thus, the objection regarding jurisdiction, at this stage cannot be entertained. Admittedly in all claim petitions before this Court, the chart prepared by State Legal Services Authority is applicable. Therefore, as there is no income - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:6419 MFA No. 5160 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5309 of 2024 HC-KAR proof, this Court finds it reasonable to take the notional income of the petitioner herein as Rs.14,500/- as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.

8. Further, as per Ex.P7/Aadhar card, petitioner was born on 24.03.1995 and accident occurred on 10.12.2020. As such, he was aged 25 years and the multiplier to be considered is 18. Ex.P4 is the wound certificate and petitioner also examined the doctor as PW4. As per the medical evidence, he sustained injuries, i.e., fracture dislocation of left hip having 1) pipkins type-I fracture of head of femur displaced and 2) Fracture postero inferior aspect of acetabulum with displacement of fracture fragments and the doctor considering the medical records assessed the disability as 40%.

9. Learned counsel for respondent objected the same on the ground that he is not a treating doctor and it was treated conservatively. The limb disability is assessed as 40% and the whole body disability is assessed as 20%. - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:6419 MFA No. 5160 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5309 of 2024 HC-KAR But the Tribunal has taken the physical disability as 8% to the whole body without any basis. Considering the nature of injuries and the medical evidence, this Court finds it reasonable to take the disability as 1/3rd of 40% = 13%. Loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.14,500 x 12 x 18 x 13% = Rs.4,07,160/-. The petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 9 days. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs.30,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Petitioner might not have attended any other work at least for a period of 3 months. Therefore, Rs.14,500 x 3 = Rs.43,500/- is granted towards loss of income during laid-up.

10. Thus in all, components awarded by this court are as below, - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:6419 MFA No. 5160 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5309 of 2024 HC-KAR Sl.Nos. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 2 3 4 5 Loss of future earning Pain and suffering Loss of amenities Transportation, nourishment and attendant charges. Loss of income during laid down period 4,07,160 50,000 25,000 30,000 43,500 Total 5,55,660 Hence, the compensation granted by tribunal is enhanced from Rs.2,60,080/- to Rs.5,55,660/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

11. In the result, the following order is passed: i. ii. ORDER Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment

03.01.2024 passed in MVC No.1417/2022 before XIV Addl. Small Causes Judge, - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:6419 MFA No. 5160 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5309 of 2024 HC-KAR ACMM and Member MACT, Bengaluru, is modified. iii. The claimants is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,55,660/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.2,60,080/- granted by the tribunal. iv. Respondent/Insurance Company already deposited the awarded amount before tribunal. Therefore, respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,95,580/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order. v. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same. - 11 - NC: 2026:KHC:6419 MFA No. 5160 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5309 of 2024 HC-KAR vi. On 05.02.2025, the delay of 104 days is condoned by this Court on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest in case of enhancement. Hence, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the interest for the delayed period. MFA No.5309/2024

12. Injured claimant filed petition in MVC No.1418/2022 before XIV Addl. Small Causes Judge, ACMM and Member MACT, Bengaluru and it is submitted that the claimant met with an accident on 10.12.2020 and petition claiming compensation Rs.15,00,000/-. Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.3,48,360/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.

13. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred in which it is contended that he was doing - 12 - NC: 2026:KHC:6419 MFA No. 5160 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5309 of 2024 HC-KAR agricultural work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. But the Tribunal erred in taking Rs.11,000/- per month. Amount granted under other heads is meager, doctor assessed the disability of the left lower limb at 59%. But the Tribunal has taken only 11% and rate of interest is to be enhanced. Thus, requested for enhancement of the compensation. Learned counsel the respondent considered that the doctor has not treated doctor and fracture is united. Thus the Tribunal rightly considered the disability and it needs no interference.

14. The Petitioner met with an accident in the year

2020. Though he stated that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month he has not filed any income proof. As such his notional income is to be taken as Rs.14,500/- as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As per Ex.P10 and Ex.P12, the age of the petitioner was taken as 16 and multiplier is taken as 18 and PW5 doctor stated that petitioner sustained injuries as follows, 1) Mild traumatic brain injury secondary to RTA, - 13 - NC: 2026:KHC:6419 MFA No. 5160 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5309 of 2024 HC-KAR 2) Soft tissue injury of left shoulder, 3) Left patella fracture and 4) Left humerus proximal third shaft fracture, which are grievous in nature.

15. It was observed that he is not a treated doctor. But he assessed the disability as 59% to the limb and 30% to the whole body. But the Tribunal has considered only 11% without any basis. Considering the medical evidence and nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Court finds it reasonable to take 1/3rd of 59% = 20% instead of 11%. Hence, loss of future earning capacity is Rs.14,500 x 12 x 18 x 20%= Rs.6,26,400/-. He was hospitalized for a period of 6 days. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalisation and other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs.30,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Petitioner might not have attended any other work at least for a period of 3 months due to the injuries sustained in - 14 - NC: 2026:KHC:6419 MFA No. 5160 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5309 of 2024 HC-KAR the accident. Therefore, Rs.43,500/- is granted under the head loss of income during laid-up. Tribunal also granted Rs.15,000/- for future medical expenses as per medical evidence for removal of the implants and it is confirmed.

16. Thus in all, components awarded by this court are as below, Sl.Nos. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 2 3 4 5 Loss capacity future earning 6,26,400 Pain and suffering Loss of amenities Transportation, nourishment and attendant charges. Loss of income during laid down period 50,000 30,000 30,000 43,500 6 Future medical expenses 15,000 Total 7,94,900 Hence, the compensation granted by tribunal is enhanced from Rs.3,48,360/- to Rs.7,94,900/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. - 15 - NC: 2026:KHC:6419 MFA No. 5160 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5309 of 2024 HC-KAR

17. In the result, the following order is passed: i. ii. ORDER Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment

03.01.2024 passed in MVC No.1418/2022 before XIV Addl. Small Causes Judge, ACMM and Member MACT, Bengaluru, is modified. iii. The claimants is entitled to a sum of Rs.7,94,900/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.3,48,360/- granted by the tribunal. iv. Respondent/Insurance Company already deposited the awarded amount before tribunal. Therefore, - 16 - NC: 2026:KHC:6419 MFA No. 5160 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5309 of 2024 HC-KAR respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.4,46,540/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order. v. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same. vi. On 05.02.2025, the delay of 104 days is condoned by this Court on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest in case of enhancement. Hence, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the interest for the delayed period. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 91