Mr. Riyaz Pasha Vs M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11606 MFA No. 278 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 278 OF 2023 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. RIYAZ PASHA, S/O SAB JAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O WARD NO.27, MAHEBOOBNAGAR, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, PIN - 562 105.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI GURUDEV PRASAD K.T., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MOTOR CLAIMS HUB, NO.18, 6^TH FLOOR, NEAR KRUSHI BHAVANA, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001, BY ITS MANAGER.

¶12

Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

MR. K.GANGARAJU, S/O KRISHNAPPA, NO.61, BRAHMANARAHALLI VILLAGE, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA, PIN - 562 102.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NAGARAJAIAH K., ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 12.01.2023, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED)

¶15

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.04.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.3991/2021 BY THE MACT AND V ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11606 MFA No. 278 of 2023

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 11.04.2022 passed by the MACT and V Additional Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.3991/2021. This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellant-claimant seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶21

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

¶22

their status before the tribunal.

¶23

Brief facts of the case are as under;

¶24

That on 26.07.2021 at about 6.30 p.m., the claimant was walking on the Khasimpalya railway road, Sidlaghatta town, Chikkaballapura. At that time, a Omni car bearing registration No.KA-01-B-5411 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. Due to

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11606 MFA No. 278 of 2023

¶26

the said impact, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

¶27

3.1 On service of notice, respondent No.1 appeared and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. However, respondent No.2 did not make his appearance and was placed ex parte .

¶28

3.2 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsels for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,27,500/- with interest @ 6% p.a. and directed respondent No.1-Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount within two months.

¶29

3.3 Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation amount awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:11606 MFA No. 278 of 2023

¶32

It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for appellant-claimant that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding meagre and inadequate compensation, which calls for interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶33

Per contra , learned counsel for respondentInsurance Company sustains the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal and contends that the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for interference. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the appeal.

¶34

Having heard learned counsel for appellantclaimant and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, the occurrence of the accident, involvement of the vehicle and injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident are all established and proved by the production of Exs.P1 to P13.

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11606 MFA No. 278 of 2023

¶36

Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation,

¶37

income and appropriate multiplier to be adopted, it is stated that the age of the claimant was 56 years at the time of accident. The tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at ‘9’, which does not call for interference and the same is retained. The tribunal taken the income of the claimant to be Rs.14,000/- per month. However, the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes the income of Rs.15,000/- for the accident of the year 2021. Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.15,000/-. PW.2-Doctor has opined the disability to the extent of 45% to the right arm and 15% to the whole body, whereas the tribunal has assessed the disability at 15% to the whole body as opined by PW.2-Doctor, which does not call for interference and the same is retained. Therefore, the loss of future income due to disability would be Rs.2,43,000/- (Rs.15,000/- x 12 x 9 x 15%) as against Rs.2,26,800/- awarded by the tribunal.

¶38

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11606 MFA No. 278 of 2023

¶39

The tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- under this head..

¶40

The tribunal awarded Rs.1,15,500/- towards medical expenses and hospital charges, Rs.4,000/towards food and nourishment, Rs.4,000/towards conveyance charges, Rs.4,000/towards attendant charges and Rs.30,000/- towards future medical expenses, which do not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶41

The tribunal awarded Rs.4,000/- towards loss of amenities. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- under this head.

¶42

The tribunal awarded Rs.14,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. In view of enhancement of the income by this Court to Rs.15,000/- per month, the claimant would require atleast three months period to recuperate and to get back to his normal day to day activities. Therefore, claimant shall be entitled to

¶43

7 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:11606 MFA No. 278 of 2023

¶45

Rs.45,000/- (Rs.15,000/- x 3) under the head loss of

¶46

income during laid up period.

¶47

In view of the above, the claimant shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,20,500/- as

¶48

against Rs.4,27,500/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶49

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of future income due to disability	2,43,000-00
Pain and suffering	50,000-00
Medical expenses and hospital charges	1,15,500-00
Food and nourishment	4,000-00
Conveyance charges	4,000-00
Attendant charges	4,000-00
Loss of amenities	25,000-00
Loss of income during laid up period	45,000-00
Future medical expenses	30,000-00
TOTAL	5,20,500-00

¶50

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part ;

¶53

ii) The judgment and award dated 11.04.2022 passed in MVC.No.3991/2021 by the MACT and V Additional Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, is modified;

¶54

iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,20,500/- as against Rs.4,27,500/- along with interest @ 6% p.a.;

¶55

8 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:11606 MFA No. 278 of 2023

¶57

iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid by the respondent-Insurance Company with interest @ 6% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶58

v) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant as per the terms of the Tribunal by electronic transfer to the claimant upon furnishing the required Bank details/upon proper identification;

¶59

vi) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact;

¶60

vii) Ordered accordingly.

¶61

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶62

CPN CT: BHK

Mr. Riyaz Pasha v. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Riyaz Pasha v. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Snehal Dure P Vs Sri Sachin S

Sri. Muthuraju Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Sri Gangadharappa Vs Sri Ashwathappa

Karan Chandrashekar Vs Smt.Divya K.C

Mrs.R Lavanya Vs Mr. B v Satish

Smt. Akshata Kattimani Vs Sri. Shreyas Samraksh J