Sri. Sreenivas Vs the Managing Director

SRI. SREENIVAS S/O GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, AYURVEDIC DOCTOR, R/O CHARMAD MANDE, SOMAGUDDU ROAD, CHALLAKERE TOWN, NOW WORKING AT DODAPET, NEAR CHOWTIME BANDE R/O C/O ESWARAPPA, S/O LATE GURULINGAPPA, NEAR BRAMAGERE PRESSES, CHITRADURGA TOWN-577 501

¶13

(BY SRI D NAGARAJA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

…APPELLANT

¶16

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. VRL LOGISTICS LTD., REG. AND ADMN OFFICE 3, NH4, BENGALURU ROAD, VARUR HUBLI-580020

¶17

M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. DIVISION OFFICE, NO.4, HUBLI CITY-580 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1542-DB MFA No. 1409/2016

¶19

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. A. PRAKASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.358/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & CJM, MACT-III, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M.POONACHA)

¶27

The above appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the

¶28

judgment and award dated 18.9.2015 passed in MVC No.358/2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, MACT-III, Chitradurga¹ seeking enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal by its judgment and award allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant and awarded compensation of `1,65,000/- together with interest at 7.5% p.a., and held respondent Nos.1 and 2, who were the owner and insurer of the vehicle, jointly and severally liable to pay the

¶29

1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1542-DB MFA No. 1409/2016

¶31

compensation awarded and directed respondent No.2/insurer to deposit the compensation awarded.

¶32

The findings of the Tribunal on negligence and

¶33

liability have not been challenged and the same have become final. Hence, in the present appeal only the aspect regarding quantum of compensation is adjudicated.

¶34

The parties are referred to henceforth as per their

¶35

ranks before the Tribunal for the sake convenience.

¶36

It is the case of the claimant that on 4.4.2013 when he was riding a motor cycle, near Kammathamarikunte gate, lorry bearing Registration No.CNB 6380, came in a rash and negligent manner and tried to overtake the motor cycle bearing Reg No. KA-16-A-9758 and in the said process, hit the motor cycle causing the accident in question. That due to the said accident, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Claiming compensation for the injuries sustained, the claimant instituted claim proceedings arraying the owner and insurer of the lorry as respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The respondents entered appearance before the Tribunal and contested the claim proceedings.

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1542-DB MFA No. 1409/2016

¶38

The claimant adduced oral and documentary evidence. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondents. The policy of insurance was marked on behalf of the respondents . The Tribunal by its judgment and award partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of `1,65,000/with interest at 7.5% pa. Being aggrieved, the claimant has preferred the present appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

¶39

Heard the submissions of learned counsel Sri D.Nagaraja Reddy, appointed by the High Court Legal Services Committee pursuant to the order dated 12.1.2023 passed by this Court for the appellant/claimant, as also learned counsel Sri A.Prakash, for respondent No.1 (owner of the lorry) and learned counsel Sri A.M.Venkatesh, for respondent No.2 (insurer of the lorry).

¶40

In the claim petition, the claimant stated that he is an Ayurvedic Doctor earning 25,000/- to 30,000/- pm. However, no documents have been produced either to demonstrate that the claimant was an Ayurvedic Doctor or with regard to his income. In view of the fact that no document has been produced by the claimant and keeping in mind the date of

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1542-DB MFA No. 1409/2016

¶42

accident, the notional income of the claimant is assessed as `8,000/-.

¶43

Although in the claim petition the claimant stated that he was 52 years, it is forthcoming from the MLC Register extract [Ex.P79(a)] as well as other medical documents that the claimant is aged 62 years. Hence, the age of the claimant is assessed as 62 years.

¶44

To prove the injuries and the treatment, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and the doctor as PW.2. It is forthcoming that the doctor/PW.2 has been examined only for the purpose of assessment of disability and he has not treated the claimant. Further, PW.2 has deposed that he is an Orthopedic Surgeon and consultant surgeon at Basaveshwara Medical Hospital and Research Centre, Chitradurga and he runs his clinic. However, no documents have been produced to demonstrate the same. PW.2 has issued the disability certificate (Ex.P75). However, since PW.2 has not treated the claimant, neither the testimony of PW.2 nor the disability certificate can be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessment of disability.

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1542-DB MFA No. 1409/2016

¶46

It is forthcoming from the wound certificate (Ex.P5), the outpatient file of Sri Jayadeva Cardiovascular Sciences and Research (Ex.P74), MLC Register extract and admission record issued by the S.S. Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, Davanagere (Ex.P79) that the claimant sustained fracture of right clavicle, fracture of C1 Atlas and C2 injury to the right upper limb and lacerated wound over the edge of the right hand. The claimant has taken treatment as an inpatient from 5.4.2013 to 20.4.2013 in S.S. Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Davanagere, for a total period of 15 days. Thereafter, he has taken treatment as an outpatient in various hospitals.

¶47

Keeping in mind the aforementioned, the compensation is reassessed as follows:

¶48

i. Having regard to the fact that the claimant has sustained two fractures i.e., to the right clavicle, to the Cervical vertebrae (C1 & C2) and other injuries, the compensation towards pain and suffering is reassessed as 80,000/- as against 45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal;

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1542-DB MFA No. 1409/2016

¶50

ii. The compensation towards medical expenses in a sum of `25,000/- is awarded by the Tribunal based on records. That needs to be maintained.

¶51

iii. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the period of treatment, laid up period can be considered as three months and compensation towards the same is awarded in a sum of (8,000/-x3) 24,000/- as against `20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal;

¶52

iv. Having regard to the period of treatment, it is just and proper to award a sum of `25,000/- towards food, nourishment and attendant charges;

¶53

v. Keeping in mind the injuries sustained and resultant effect of the said injuries, the loss of amenities is awarded in a sum of `30,000/-;

¶54

vi. The claimant not having adduced any acceptable evidence to demonstrate the disability, not entitled to compensation on the head of permanent disability.

¶55

Accordingly, the total compensation under various heads is re-assessed as follows:

¶56

8 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:1542-DB MFA No. 1409/2016

¶58

Sl.No.	Heads	Amount awarded by the Tribunal(`)	Amount awarded by this Court (`)
1.	Pain and suffering	45000.00	80000.00
2.	Treatment expenses/medical expenses	25000.00	25000.00
3	Permanent disability/discomfort	50000.00	0.00
4.	Loss of income during laid up period	20000.00	24000.00
5.	Attendant and nourishment	15000.00	25000.00
6.	Conveyance and incidental charges	10000.00	0.00
7.	Loss of amenities	0.00	30000.00
	Total	165000.00	184000.00