Partly allowed

Ummar Faruq v. Kafeel Ahamad Khan

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2012MFA/756/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in a miscellaneous first appeal under Section 173(1) MV Act allows increased compensation for a motor accident victim by adding Rs. 45,000 over the original award, while denying interest on the increased portion due to a delay in filing.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 45,000 awarded; interest on enhanced amount denied due to delay; insurer to deposit amount within three months.

Ummar Faruq Vs Kafeel Ahamad Khan — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.756 OF 2012(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

UMMAR FARUQ, 25 YRS S/O P.J.ISMAIL R/O ABDULLA MANZIL, KELANEJAR, UDUPI TK & DIST.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

( By Sri. G N MAIYA, ADV )

¶11

AND :

¶12

1 KAFEEL AHAMAD KHAN, 26 YRS S/O SHAKEEL AHAMAD KHAN R/O 250/1, C.P.MISSION COMPOUND, JHANSI, UTTAR PRADESH

¶13

2 THE UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD. REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KRISHNA COMPLEX, G.B.PANTH ROAD, UDUPI ...RESPONDENTS

¶14

( By Sri. R RAJAGOPALAN, ADV FOR R2 )

¶15

¶16

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.06.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.16/2008 BY THE MACT, UDUPI, SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

I.A.No.1/2012 is allowed. Delay of 84 days is condoned.

¶20

However, for the delay period claimant is not entitled for interest on the enhanced amount.

¶21

This appeal is by the claimant, seeking enhancement of

¶22

compensation, as against the award passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and MACT, Udupi in MVC No.16/2008.

¶23

On 2.12.2007 near Bannanje, Udupi around 7.30 p.m. when

¶24

the claimant was proceeding on a motorbike as a pillion rider, another motorcycle bearing No.UP 93 9808 driven by its rider in a negligent

¶25

¶26

manner, came and dashed against the motorcycle bearing No.KA 20 S 9110 on which the claimant was traveling. Due to the impact, he sustained injuries. In the claim petition filed, the Tribunal, having held that accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the rider

¶27

of the offending vehicle in question, has awarded a total compensation

¶28

of Rs.53,500/- on the following heads:

¶29

Pain and suffering	Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period	Rs. 9,000/-
Medical expenses	Rs. 21,500/-
Discomfort and loss of amenities in life	Rs. 8,000/-
Conveyance, attendant and extra nourishment
food charges	Rs. 5,000/-

¶30

Being not satisfied, this appeal is filed.

¶31

Heard.

¶32

As per the medical evidence, claimant has sustained fracture

¶33

of the base of 3^rd metatarsal of the left foot, fracture of 4^th metatarsal left foot, fracture of 3^rd and 4^th metacarpal of the right hand and also

¶34

¶35

fracture of the 5^th metatarsal of right foot. The disability is assessed at 15% to the whole body. The claimant was said to be working as helper at Dubai and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. He could be awarded another Rs.15,000/- on the head pain and suffering; another Rs.20,000/- on the head loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and another Rs.10,000/- towards diet, conveyance and attendant charges. Thus, claimant would be entitled for Rs.45,000/- over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal with 6% interest from the date of

¶36

petition till deposit. Insurer to deposit the amount in three months.

¶37

Appeal is allowed in part.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Bkp

Ummar Faruq v. Kafeel Ahamad Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ummar Faruq v. Kafeel Ahamad Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M Devaraju Vs Sri K B Boraiah

Jayappa Vs P Basavaraja

Umar Vs Divisional Controller

Bangalore Metropolitan Vs Sri Manjunath R

M Premalatha Vs Mohammed Ashwak

Ningamma Vs P Govindarajan