The High Court enhanced compensation in a motor vehicle accident appeal. The court rejected the Tribunal's low disability assessment of 8% and recalculated it at 11%, increasing the awarded amount from Rs. 2,78,830 to Rs. 4,11,270.
The judgment and award of the Tribunal are modified; the appellant is entitled to Rs. 4,11,270/- along with interest.
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 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5832 OF 2021 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI. HANUMAIAH, S/O. LATE PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT GAJANAPALYA VILLAGE, AMBRUTHURU HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 111.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARUN PONNAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.26.03.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.3595/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE 12TH ADDITIONAL, ACMM COURT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCH-08), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION IN TIME.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 26.03.2021 passed in MVC.No.3595/2018 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 12th Additional and ACMM Court, Court of Small Causes, (SCCH-08) Bengaluru, (for short 'the tribunal'). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequate and meagre compensation awarded by the tribunal.
their status before the tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
It is the case of appellant, he was going by the side of footpath at Gajanana Palya village, Horati - Ambruthuru road, Ambruthuru hobli, Kunigal Taluk, during which time the rider of Bullet motor cycle bearing reg.No.KA-06-EW-9022 came in high
speed rash in a negligent manner to the extreme left side of the road dashed against the appellant. Due to which the appellant sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to Belluru A.C.Giri Hospital, where he was impatient for 21 days. Due to the injuries suffered he was permanently disabled unable to do his work as usual prior to the occurrence of accident. Hence, filed claim petition seeking compensation.
3.1. On service of notice, respondent No.1 was placed ex-parte, respondent No.2 Insurance - Company filed statement of objections denied the employment of the appellant including age, avocation, income so also the negligence attributed as against the rider of the motor cycle. On these grounds he sought for dismissal of 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, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1, PW.2 and another as PW.3 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P14. On the other hand, respondents got examined as RW.1 got marked document as Exs.R1 and R2.
NC: 2024:KHC:11205 MFA No. 5832 of 2021
3.4. On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary. Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,78,830/- with interest at 9% per annum and directed to Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the appellant.
3.5. Being aggrieved by the meagre compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and award.
perused the impugned judgment and award. On careful perusal of Exs.P1 to P14, which depict the filing of FIR and Charge sheet, against the rider of offending vehicle. Hence, negligence is rightly attributed against the rider of the offending vehicle.
tribunal is on lower side as even according to the opinion of the Doctor to the right lower limb is 28% is divided into three parts, the disability would be 9.3% he need to consider that the
appellant is Mason by profession the entire job would be dependant on his lower limb as he has to stand and sit and do the work, hence the functional disability in my opinion would be 11% hence, the disability is taken at 11%.
by the tribunal and same is taken.
(Rs.20,000 + Rs.20,000 = Rs.40,000/-) Rs.40,000/- on this head.
Rs.10,000/- is awarded by the tribunal as against the appellant was inpatient for 21 days (Rs.10,000 X 21days = Rs.21,000/-) Rs.21,000/- is awarded by this Court.
to a total compensation of Rs.4,11,270/- as against Rs.2,78,830/- as mentioned in the table below.
| Heads | Amount in Rs. |
|---|---|
| Loss of future income | 1,88,760-00 |
| Pain and sufferings | 50,000-00 |
| Medical expenses | 58,510-00 |
NC: 2024:KHC:11205 MFA No. 5832 of 2021
| Loss of amenities | 40,000-00 |
|---|---|
| Loss during laid down period | 33,000-00 |
| Food, nourishment and travel expenses |
21,000-00 |
| Future medical expenses | 20,000-00 |
| TOTAL | 4,11,270-00 |
ORDER
iii. The appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,11,270/- as against Rs.2,78,830/-.
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
vii. All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact.
Sd/JUDGE
TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was adequate and required enhancement.
Whether the determination of disability percentage and multiplier by the Tribunal was correct based on the evidence.
Sri. Hanumaiah
Mr. Yogesh
United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Pradeep Singh Yerur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
