Sachin @ Shashikumar Vs Parvati W/O Babu

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:07.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1902/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13206 MFA No. 100826 of 2016

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

¶24

This appeal is filed by the petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi (‘Tribunal’ for short) vide judgment and award dated 07.01.2016 in MVC No.1902/2013.

¶25

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

¶26

2.1. On 25.08.2013 at about 00:45 hours, on NH-4

¶27

near Gandhi Nagar Bridge, in between Halaga and Kakati, the driver of the offending truck bearing Reg.No.KA-20/A5907 owned by respondent No.1/its owner and insured by respondent No.2 i.e., the Insurance Company, wherein the petitioner was a Cleaner, drove the same at high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the parked truck

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13206 MFA No. 100826 of 2016

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

bearing Reg.No.KA-49/1135. As a result, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and filed a claim petition seeking compensation. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

¶31

The owner filed a statement of objections admitting that the petitioner was working as a Cleaner in the offending truck, and also admitted regarding the occurrence of the accident, and denied the other averments made in the claim petition and accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner.

¶32

The Insurance Company of the offending truck filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver did not possess valid and effective driving licence as of the date of accident. It is contended that, the accident occurred on account of negligent parking of the other truck. The petitioner was an unauthorized passenger in the offending

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13206 MFA No. 100826 of 2016

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

truck. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company.

¶37

The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

¶38

The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined the Doctor as PW-2 and marked 17 documents as Exs.P1 to P17. In rebuttal, Insurance Company neither led any oral evidence nor produced any documents.

¶39

The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with cost vide judgment dated 07.01.2016 and awarded compensation of Rs.14,90,000/- with interest at 9% p.a.

¶40

and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13206 MFA No. 100826 of 2016

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the

¶44

quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed this appeal seeking for enhancement.

¶45

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability and she submits that, the petitioner has undergone surgery, and his left leg was amputated. She also submits that, the petitioner has suffered 100% disability, wherein the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 50%, which is on the lower side. She submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the appeal.

¶47

Per contra , learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that, the compensation awarded by the

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13206 MFA No. 100826 of 2016

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference by this Court and hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶51

Perused the records and considered the

¶52

submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding quantum of compensation.

¶53

There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident, the petitioner having sustained injuries in the said accident, and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck. The petitioner, to prove the disability, examined the Doctor as PW-2. The petitioner has produced a wound certificate marked as Ex.P5, Ex.P8 is the discharge card, Ex.P9 is the certificate given by Chinmayi Hospital, Ex.P10 is the artificial limb estimation, Ex.P11 and P12 are the Radiologist reports, Ex.P13 is the disability certificate and Ex.P15 is the X-ray films. These documents and the evidence of PW-2

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13206 MFA No. 100826 of 2016

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

show that, the petitioner has sustained (1) Compound type III Comminuted fracture left tibia and fibula at its upper and middle 3^rd with neuro vascular deficit, (2) Fracture right femur, (3) Fracture lateral wall and left maxillary sinus. He was inpatient in Lakeview Hospital, Belagavi from 25.08.2013 to 02.09.2013. The petitioner has undergone a surgery, and his left leg below the knee was amputated. Again, he was hospitalized as inpatient in Chinmayi Hospital, Kundapur. From the perusal of evidence of PW-2 and medical records, it discloses that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability. The Doctor has opined that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 55% to the lower limb and 15% to the right lower limb. The Tribunal has assessed the disability to the extent of 50%. Considering the nature of injuries, evidence of PW-2 and the medical records, this Court re-assesses the disability at 65%.

¶57

The accident occurred in 2013. The petitioner, to prove his income, has not produced any proof of income.

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13206 MFA No. 100826 of 2016

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

In the absence of income proof, the notional income has to be assessed as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority i.e., Rs.7,000/- per month. The petitioner was aged 20 years old as of the date of the accident. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance

¶61

Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others¹ , 40% future prospects has to be added to the notional income i.e., Rs.7,000/- + Rs.2,800/- = Rs.9,800/-. The multiplier applicable to the age group of the petitioner is ‘18’. Considering the nature of injuries, this Court re-assesses the compensation under the following heads:

¶62

Particulars	Compensation a By the Tribunal	warded in Rs. By this Court
Pain and sufferings	1,00,000	1,75,000
Loss of income during the period of treatment	2,00,000	2,00,000

¶63

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶64

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13206 MFA No. 100826 of 2016

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Loss of income during laid-up period	32,500	58,800 (Rs.9,800/- x 6)
Incidental charges	35,000	60,000
Medical expenses	2,55,500	2,55,500
Future medical expenses	15,000	30,000
Loss of marriage prospects	50,000	1,50,000
Loss of future income	7,02,000	13,76,920 (Rs.9,800/- x 12 x 18 x 65%)
Value of prosthesis	1,00,000	1,00,000
Total	14,90,000	24,06,220
Enhanced by this Court		9,16,220

¶67

Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of

¶68

Rs.24,06,220/- as against Rs.14,90,000/- awarded by the

¶69

Tribunal. The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.9,16,220/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. In view of the same, the point is answered accordingly.

¶70

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶71

10 -

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13206 MFA No. 100826 of 2016

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

ORDER

¶75

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part ;

¶76

ii. The judgment and award dated 07.01.2016 passed in MVC No.1902/2013 by the Tribunal is hereby modified;

¶77

iii. The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.9,16,220/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation;

¶78

iv. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶79

v. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶80

Sd/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

¶81

PA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Sachin @ Shashikumar v. Parvati W/O Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin @ Shashikumar v. Parvati W/O Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nabi Sab Hajaratsab Mulla Vs Girimalla Basappa Awati

M/S Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd, Vs Kalagouda S/O Devagouda Patil

The Managing Director and Its Self Insurance Fund, Vs Shivanand Sangappa Ojag @ Ojaganavar

The Divisional Manager, Vs v Venkatesh S/O v. Thimappa

Shekar Tukaram Nadoni, Vs Shrikant Ravanasidda Patil

New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs Ramabai @ Manjula W/O Shantaram Revankar