Claimant appeals tribunal award for scooter-accident injuries seeking enhancement. Court reassesses disability at 19% whole body with multiplier 13, raises several heads, increasing total compensation from Rs.3,53,035 to Rs.6,35,155.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5638 OF 2023(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GIRIMALLAIAH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 V/O. 21/08/2023, NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W))
NC: 2024:KHC:9796 MFA No. 5638 of 2023
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.06.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3770/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-5), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 05.06.2023 passed by the Court of VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-5) at Bengaluru, (for short 'the Tribunal') in MVC No.3770/2022. This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation.
their status before the Tribunal.
When the appellant was going by the side of road at Wilson Garden, 12th cross, near SPR Bar, carefully and
cautiously, at that time one scooter bearing Reg.No.KA-01-EZ2314 came in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner from behind and dashed against him, due to which the appellant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He took treatment as indoor patient and surgery was conducted, implants were inserted. He spent substantial amount towards medical treatment and other incidental expenses, suffered mental pain and suffering. Hence, he filed claim petition seeking compensation. It is stated that claimant was hale and healthy aged about 50 years and was working as weaver earning Rs.20,000/-per month.
3.1. On service of notice, respondent No.1 - insurance company has filed statement of objections so also respondent No.2 both of them denied the averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of claim petition on the ground that the age avocation and income falsely stated so also the injuries sustained and hence sought for dismissal of claim petition. It was also pleaded that the accident occurred due to the fault of the claimant who was crossing the road of pedestrian without looking towards left and right and without
NC: 2024:KHC:9796 MFA No. 5638 of 2023
observing traffic rules and regulations. On these grounds, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
3.2. On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration.
3.3. In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the case, claimant was examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P13.
3.4. On the basis of materials placed on record both oral and documentary. Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.3,53,035/- with interest of 6% per annum and directed the respondent - insurance company to deposit the compensation within 60 days.
3.5. Being aggrieved by the meager compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and award.
NC: 2024:KHC:9796 MFA No. 5638 of 2023
at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he seeks enhancement of compensation.
notional income as no proof of income is produced. Doctor was examined as PW.2 who opined disability to an extent of 57% to the left lower limb and whole body disability at 19%. However, Tribunal disagreeing with the doctor assessed the disability at 10%. I am in a agreement with learned counsel for the appellant that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side and the functional disability is to be taken at 19% to the whole body. In view of the fact that the appellant was aged about 47 years as per the Aadhar card at Ex.P11 the appropriate multiplier is '13', which is correctly taken by the Tribunal.
slightly modified in the following manner; (Rs.15,500 X 12 X 13 X 19% = Rs.4,59,420) Rs. 4,59,420/- as against 2,41,800/-.
attendance Rs.15,000/- is awarded by the tribunal. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate as the claimant was inpatient for 19 days he would be entitled to Rs. 19,000/- under this head.
to a total compensation of Rs.6,35,155/- as against Rs.3,53,035/- as mentioned in the table below:
NC: 2024:KHC:9796 MFA No. 5638 of 2023
| Heads | Amount in Rs. |
|---|---|
| Loss of future income | 4,59,420-00 |
| Pain and sufferings | 50,000-00 |
| Conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges |
19,000-00 |
| Medical expenses | 15,235-00 |
| Loss of amenities in life | 25,000-00 |
| Loss of income during the laid up period |
46,500-00 |
| Future medical expenses | 20,000-00 |
| TOTAL | 6,35,155-00 |
ORDER
Sd/JUDGE
TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66
1 issue framed by the court
Was the tribunal's compensation assessment inadequate, particularly the disability and related heads?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhaskar P
United India Insurance Company Ltd
Syed Shabeer Ahmed
Pradeep Singh Yerur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
