Injured claimant appealed against tribunal award in a road accident case. The High Court reassessed notional income at Rs.12,500/- per month using the KSLSA chart, accepted PW2's assessment of 29% whole-body disability, and enhanced compensation under several heads.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:41931-DB MFA No.5513/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5513/2021 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
BHASKARAN CHANDRASEKAR S/O LATE SESHAPPA JETLY AGED BOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.16-621, B-2 GANDHI ROAD, MADANAPALLI CHITTOOR, A.P.
Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. A. SREENIVASAIAH, ADV.,)
AND:
…APPELLANT
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR T, ADV., FOR R2 V/O DTD:17.03.2022 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.12.2019 PASSED BY THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU IN MVC NO.4550/2018 AND ENHANCE COMPENSATION FROM Rs.7,42,000/- TO Rs.30,00,000/- WITH COST AND INTEREST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
Challenging the judgment and award dated 13.12.2019,
the claimant in MVC. No.4550/2018 on the file of the MACT, Bangalore City (SCCH-4) has preferred this appeal.
tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the accidental injuries caused to him
on 13.07.2018. It is contended that the claimant was aged about 46 years, driver by avocation and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month at the time of accident. It is further contended that the claimant on 13.07.2018 at about 7:00 a.m., was walking on the left side of the road, at that time driver of car bearing Reg. No. KA-03-MC-3449 driving the same in rash and negligent manner lost control over the same and dashed the claimant from the back side, resultantly the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He was provided treatment initially at Sparsh Hospital, Bengaluru and thereafter at St. John's Hospital, Bengaluru. It is contended that the claimant has suffered permanent physical disability due to the accident and lost the earning capacity. It is contended that the accident was reported to the jurisdictional police and after completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet against the driver of the car involved in the accident. In claim petition a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- was sought as compensation.
exparte before the tribunal. Respondent No.2 contested the proceedings denying the occurrence of accident, age, income and avocation of the claimant. Liability of insurer was denied
on the ground that there was delay of five days in lodging the complaint and there is no nexus between the injuries suffered by the claimant and the accident. It is alleged that in order to get compensation, the jurisdictional police and the owner of the vehicle colluded with the claimant and filed the claim petition. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
the appellant submits that the tribunal has committed error in assessing the income of the injured at Rs.10,000/- per month
as he was working as a driver and in support of the same he has produced driving license. It is submitted that though PW2 has assessed the disability of the injured at 57% to the both limbs and to the whole body at 29%, the tribunal without any reason assessed the disability at 20% which is on lower side. It is further submitted that the award of compensation by the tribunal under the head of pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of income during the laid up period and future medical expenses is also on lower side. He seeks to reassess the same and allow the appeal.
awarded by the tribunal on all other heads is just and that does not call for any enhancement. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
"Whether the impugned judgment and award need to be interfered by enhancing the compensation?"
ANALYSIS
charge sheet. The tribunal considering the evidence available on record had recorded the finding that the driver of the offending car was negligent and the said car was insured with respondent No.2 and it is liable to pay the compensation for the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant.
PW2-Dr. S.A. Somashekara, Orthopaedic surgeon at Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bengaluru to prove the disability. Perusal of evidence of PW2, shows that the claimant was diagnosed for Right femur shaft fracture, Left open tibia shaft comminuted fracture, Left fibula shaft fracture. The evidence further indicates that the claimant underwent surgery. PW2 on examination of the claimant has opined that the claimant walks with pain and limping, suturing scars are seen on right hip and thigh, left knee and leg. PW2 after perusing the entire medical records at para 6 and 7 in his deposition, assessed the disability and come to conclusion that the claimant has sustained disability at 57% to both lower limbs and 29% to the whole body. PW2 has deposed that the claimant needs another surgery for removal of implants and the cost of such surgery in private setup would be Rs.50,000/-. The said witness has been cross examined however, nothing has been elicited to impeach his evidence. On considering the oral evidence of PW2, and Ex.P9 to Ex.P15 the medical evidence, we are of the considered view that the tribunal has erred in assessing the disability at 20%. Taking note of the avocation of the claimant, nature of treatment provided to him and keeping in mind the evidence
available on record, we are of the considered view that it would be just and appropriate to consider the whole body disability of the claimant at 29% as spoken by PW2.
| 1 | Pain and suffering | Rs. 60,000/- |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Medical expenses | Rs. 2,55,000/- |
| 3 | Loss of income during the laid up period (12,500 x 6) |
Rs. 75,000/- |
| 4 | Loss of future income due to disability (12,500 x 12 x 13 x 29%) |
Rs. 5,65,500/- |
| 5 | Towards food and nourishment, attendant charges and conveyance |
Rs. 25,000/- |
| 6 | Loss of amenities | Rs. 50,000/- |
| 7 | Future medical expenses | Rs. 50,000/- |
| Total | Rs.10,80,500/- | |
| Awarded by Tribunal | Rs.7,42,000/- | |
| Enhanced Compensation | Rs.3,38,500/- |
of Rs.10,80,500/- and enhanced compensation would be Rs.3,38,500/- with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.
pass the following;
ORDER
NC: 2024:KHC:41931-DB MFA No.5513/2021
Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE
Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE
ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the tribunal's assessment of income at Rs.10,000/- per month and disability at 20% required interference and enhancement of compensation?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhaskaran Chandrasekar
Muniraju M
The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
K.S. Mudagal
Vijaykumar A. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
