Mr Abhishek Sirohi Vs Mr Chand Pasha

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30069 MFA No. 2246 of 2013

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2246 OF 2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. ABHISHEK SIROHI S/O RAVI SIROHI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT:NO.57/A, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, CHIRANJEEVI NAGAR LAYOUT, KEMPAPURA HEBBEL, BANGALORE - 560 024.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. M.R. KUMARASWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MR. CHAND PASHA NO.18, 6TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS, SHAMANNA GARDEN, BILALMASJID, PIPELINE, MYSROE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 040.

¶14

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, PRESTIGE CORNICHE, 1ST FLOOR, 62/1, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 025.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 24.07.2015 – NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30069 MFA No. 2246 of 2013

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.12.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1794/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶24

None appeared for the appellant even though the appeal was admitted and slated for final hearing.

¶25

The petitioner, who sustained a degloving injury

¶26

from anus to the right gluteal, measuring 12 length x 2-3 cm deep exposing of muscle, abrasion over the ankle joint-elbow joint, right palmar region, abrasion over the right lateral aspect of hip, approached the Tribunal for compensation. It is the case

¶27

of the appellant that he had sustained the said injuries in the accident that occurred on 28.12.2010 at 12.45 p.m., while he

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30069 MFA No. 2246 of 2013

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

was proceeding on his two wheeler and was hit by a canter bearing No.KA-05/B-2873 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of the canter. The petitioner/appellant contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.20,000/- is abysmally low, has approached this Court for enhancement of the compensation.

¶31

The fact that there was an accident involving the two wheeler of the petitioner and the canter owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 is not in dispute.

¶32

The records reveal that the petitioner had sustained above mentioned injuries as depicted in the wound certificate at Ex.P7 and the discharge summary at Ex.P8. Evidently, the petitioner was inpatient for five days at Columbia Asia Hospital and the discharge summary also show that he had suffered blunt pelvic trauma with fracture bilateral ischial spines, coccyx and inferior aspect of sacrum. It is pertinent to note that one of the injuries was opined to be grievous in nature and the other injuries were simple in nature. The petitioner did not examine

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30069 MFA No. 2246 of 2013

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

any Medical Officer to establish that there was any permanent disability to him. Obviously, there cannot be a permanent disability in given the nature of injuries sustained by him. Therefore, there cannot be any compensation on account of permanent disability sustained by him.

¶36

The injuries sustained by the petitioner were in the

¶37

form of degloving injuries in his gluteal region and therefore, it can safely be said that he was unable to sit and work or travel on a two wheeler atleast for a period of three months. This aspect is not at all considered by the Tribunal. The petitioner had produced the salary certificate at Ex.P10 issued by the Sujay Enterprises which shows the consolidated salary of the petitioner at Rs.19,400/-. Since the employer of the petitioner was not examined, Exs.P9 and P10 were not considered by the Tribunal.

¶38

Evidently, the accident had taken place on 28.12.2010. The notional income that would be considered for the year 2010 is Rs.6,500/-. Therefore, considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner, his inability to resume

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30069 MFA No. 2246 of 2013

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

his normal work, this Court feels that it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head of pain and suffering and a sum of Rs.18,000/- under the head of loss of income during the laid up period.

¶42

Further, considering the inpatient treatment for five days, instead of a sum of Rs.6,500/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of conveyance, nutritious food, attendant charges, it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- under this head.

¶43

Though the petitioner had produced the medical bill worth of Rs.36,723/-, the Tribunal has held that they are breakup bills and therefore, the drawn inference of the petitioner was entitled only for Rs.4,486/-.

¶44

On a careful examination of the medical bills produced, it appears that the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.36,700/- and the separate bills were not considered by the Tribunal. The said finding of the Tribunal appears to be incorrect. In that view of the matter, instead of a sum of Rs.4,486/-, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.36,700/-.

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30069 MFA No. 2246 of 2013

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the modified

¶48

compensation under different heads as below:

¶49

PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (IN RS.)
Pain and suffering	20,000/-
conveyance, nutritious food, attendant charges	10,000/-
Medical Expenses	36,700/-
Loss of income during laid up period	18,000/-
Loss of amenities in life	10,000/-
TOTAL	94,700/-
Less awarded by Tribunal	20,000/-
Enhancement	74,700/-

¶50

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for enhanced

¶51

compensation of Rs.74,700/- with interest and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The appeal is allowed-in-part.

¶54

(ii) The impugned judgment and award

¶55

passed by the Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of Rs.74,700/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit.

¶56