Partly allowed

Sri Prabhakar @ Udaya v. Sri Sayeed Ahmed

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2022MFA/1643/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this Motor Vehicles Act appeal in part, enhancing compensation awarded by the Tribunal for a motor accident. The court increased awards for pain and suffering, special food/nutrition, loss of amenities, and loss of future income by adopting a higher monthly income figure of Rs.6,500 and a multiplier of 18, resulting in a total compensation of Rs.3,42,020.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs.3,42,020 with 6% interest directed to respondents.

Sri Prabhakar @ Udaya Vs Sri Sayeed Ahmed — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

M.F.A.NO.1643/2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI PRABHAKAR @ UDAYA S/O. SHAKTHI VELU, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AUTO RICKSHAW DRIVER R/O. NO.868, 28^TH MAIN ROAD, CORPORATION COLONY, 9^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009. … APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI SURESH M. LATUR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI SAYEED AHMED S/O. AMEER JAN,

¶12

2 . SRI. AAQUIB SAYEED S/O. SAYEED AHMED,

¶13

BOTH ARE R/AT. NO.727, 16^TH MAIN, B.T.M LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076. ... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(VIDE ORDER DATED 21.02.2018, SERVICE AGAINST R1 & R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶15

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.12.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.7721/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 20^TH

¶16

¶17

ADDITIONAL JUDGE, 18^TH ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the

¶21

respondents though served, unrepresented.

¶22

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 07.12.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.7721/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, XX Additional Judge & XVIII ACMM, Bengaluru (ACMM-18) (‘the Tribunal’ for short) questioning the quantum of compensation.

¶23

The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

¶24

It is the contention of the appellant that the injured had sustained fracture of both bones. The Doctor, who examined the injured assessed the disability at 38% to particular limb and the Tribunal has taken the disability at 13%. The counsel would submit that income was taken only at Rs.4,500/-

¶25

¶26

per month. It is the accident of the year 2011 and in the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income at Rs.6,500/- per month. The counsel also would submit that the compensation awarded under other heads is meager.

¶27

5. Having considered the submission of the counsel and

¶28

when the injured has suffered fracture of both bones and was inpatient for a period of one month, the Tribunal committed an error in awarding Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and the same is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-.

¶29

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,000/towards transportation charges, Rs.3,100/- towards attendant charges and Rs.4,650/- towards special food and nutrition etc. The injured was inpatient for a period of one month and it is the accident of the year 2011. Hence, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.20,000/- as against Rs.10,750/-.

¶30

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- on

¶31

the head of loss of amenities and when the injured is aged about

¶32

¶33

22 years and he has suffered 13% disability, it is appropriate to award Rs.30,000/- on the head of loss of amenities.

¶34

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.28,500/-

¶35

towards medical expenses, based on records and the same does not require any interference.

¶36

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/towards future medical expenses and the Doctor, who examined the injured has not quantified as to what is the cost of removal of implant. Having considered the year of accident i.e., 2011, it does not require any interference.

¶37

The Tribunal, while calculating the loss of future

¶38

income, taken the income at Rs.4,500/- per month and in the absence of documentary evidence, ought to have taken the income at Rs.6,500/- per month. Hence, taking the income at Rs.6,500/- per month, disability at 13% and the multiplier 18, the loss of future income works out to Rs.1,82,520/- (6,500 x 12 x 18 x 13/100), as against Rs.1,26,360/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶39

¶40

The claimant is also entitled for compensation

¶41

towards loss of income during laid up period and when the injured was inpatient for a period of one month and has suffered fracture of both bones, it requires minimum four months for uniting fracture and rest. Hence, taking the income at Rs.6,500/-, an amount of Rs.26,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period as against Rs4,650/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, in all, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,42,020/-.

¶42

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶43

following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶46

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 07.12.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.7721/2011, is modified granting compensation of Rs.3,42,020/- as against Rs.2,25,260 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶47

(iii) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to pay the compensation amount with interest within six weeks from today.

¶48

¶49

(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶50

(v) In all other respects, the order of the Tribunal remains undisturbed.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Sri Prabhakar @ Udaya v. Sri Sayeed Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Prabhakar @ Udaya v. Sri Sayeed Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagarathnamma Vs Hanumantha Reddy

Ravi Vs Rafeeq Pasha

Raghu Vs Sri Umesh

Sri. Nagaraj Vs Smt. Padmamma

Venkatesh Vs Ganapathi

Smt Parvathi Vs Mr.Kulur Iqbal Sheikh