The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:22108 MFA No. 6972 of 2018 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6972 OF 2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MR SHRIDHARA K S/O P SANJEEVA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT HOSAMANE PERLAMPADY, PERLAMPADY HOUSE PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 201. (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. MR SUJITH SHETTY S/O SANJEEVA SHETTY ADULT R/AT 3-771, KALLARE HOUSE SAMPYA POST, PUTTUR TALUK D.K.DISTRICT - 574 201. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD., 1134, DEVARU MANSION DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, CHAMARAJAPURAM MYSORE REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD., RAMBHAVANA COMPLEX NAVABHARATH CIRCLE, KODIALBAIL MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 575 001.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR T, ADVOCATE FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 28.06.2022) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22108 MFA No. 6972 of 2018 HC-KAR THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21/04/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.1130/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & II ADDITIONAL MACT, MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT The above appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 19881 challenging the judgment and award dated 21.04.2018 passed in MVC No.1130/2016 by the I Additional District Judge and MACT-II, Mangaluru2 seeking for enhancement of compensation. 2. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 21.04.2018 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of `9,51,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum. Being aggrieved, the claimant has filed the above appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal. 1 Hereinafter referred as to ‘Act’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22108 MFA No. 6972 of 2018 HC-KAR 4. The finding of the Tribunal on negligence and on liability is not under challenge and have attained finality. The only question to be adjudicated in the above appeal is with regard to the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the submissions of learned counsel Sri Ravishankar Shastry, appearing for the appellant and learned counsel Sri Mohan Kumar T., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. Perused the records of the Tribunal. 6. It is forthcoming that the claimant was aged 24 years as on the date of the accident. Hence, the Tribunal has applied the appropriate multiplier of ‘18’ which is just and proper. 7. It was averred that the claimant was a painter by profession and was earning `25,000/- per month. However, no records have been produced to prove his income. Hence, the Tribunal has assessed the income of `8,000/- per month. However, having regard to the date of the accident the notional income of the claimant is re-assessed as `9,500/-. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22108 MFA No. 6972 of 2018 HC-KAR 8. It is evident that from the wound certificate (Ex.P3), discharge summaries (Exs.P8 to P10), medical certificate (Ex.P12) and other medical records that the claimant has sustained fracture of left radius and ulna as well as the open fracture of left tibia and fibula along with other simple injuries. The claimant was treated as an inpatient on three occasions for a total period of 70 days. The evidence of Doctor (PW.2) and disability certificate (Ex.P11) disclose that the Doctor has assessed the disability of the claimant at 36% to the left lower limb and 20% to the left upper limb. However, the Tribunal has assessed the whole body disability at 16%. The Tribunal had noticed that PW.2 was not a Orthopedic Doctor and that the disability has been assessed prior to the removal of implants. However, PW.2 has deposed that he was part of the team who had treated the claimant. There is no effective cross examination with regard to the extent of disability as assessed by PW.2. In view of the aforementioned, considering the disability assessed by PW.2 to upper and lower limb, it is just and proper that the disability be re-assessed as 18% to the whole body. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22108 MFA No. 6972 of 2018 HC-KAR 9. In view of the aforementioned, the compensation is re- assessed as follows: 9.1 The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering, future medical expenses, loss of amenities as well as conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges by the Tribunal are just and proper. 9.2 Tribunal has awarded compensation of `3,83,503/- towards medical expenses which is as per the actual bills which is just and proper and rounded off to `3,85,000/- 9.3 The Tribunal has assessed the period of treatment as 9 months. Hence, the loss of income during laid up period is re- assessed as (`9,500 x 9) `85,500/- as against `72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 9.4 The Loss of future earning capacity is re-assessed as (`9,500 x 12 x 18 x 18%) `3,69,360/- as against `2,76,480/- awarded by the Tribunal. 10. It is noticed that the Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% per annum. However, taking judicial notice of the interest payable towards fixed deposits, it is just and proper to award - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22108 MFA No. 6972 of 2018 HC-KAR interest at the rate of 7% p.a., on the compensation as re- assessed by this Court. 11. In view of the aforementioned, the compensation is re- assessed as follows: Sl.No Compensation Head 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 of and Medical expenses Conveyance, nutritious attendant food charges Loss of amenities and enjoyment life, discomfort Pain and sufferings Loss of income during laid up period Loss of future earnings Future medical expenses Total Amount Awarded by the Tribunal (`) 3,83,503.00 74,000.00 Amount awarded by this Court (`) 3,85,000.00 74,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 70,000.00 72,000.00 70,000.00 85,500.00 2,76,480.00 25,000.00 9,50,983.90 3,69,360.00 25,000.00 10,58,860.00 12. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of (`10,58,860/- – `9,50,983/-) = `1,07,877/-. 13. In view of the aforementioned, the following: i) ii)
Decision
ORDER The appeal is allowed in part; judgment and award dated 21.04.2018 passed in MVC No.1130/2016 by the I Additional District Judge and MACT-II, Mangaluru is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22108 MFA No. 6972 of 2018 HC-KAR hereby modified to the extent ordered herein. In all other respects, the judgment and award of the Tribunal remains unaltered; iii) The appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of ``1,07,877/- together with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till its realization in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal; iv) Respondent No.2 – insurer is directed to deposit the said compensation together with accrued interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; v) Upon such deposit, the entire enhanced compensation together with interest accrued thereupon be disbursed to the claimant; vi) The Registry to draw the modified award accordingly; vii) Records be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. No costs. BS - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77 SD/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE