Ummer Donna Vs Faruq Mohammed Gangoli

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD BHATKAL BRANCH REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JEWEL PLAZA, MARUTHI VEETHIKA, UDUPI - 576 201. REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. A.M. VENKATESH & SRI H.T. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

Corrected vide chamber order dated 06.01.2026.

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:34948 MFA No. 3343 of 2013

¶21

2 -

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.12.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.348/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, against the judgment dated 22.12.2012 in MVC No.348/2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kundapura (hereinafter referred to as 'the MACT' for short).

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34948 MFA No. 3343 of 2013

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The appellant/claimant, who sustained injuries

¶31

in a road traffic accident on 20.01.2011, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation amount of Rs.61,05,000/-. The Tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record awarded a total compensation of Rs.08,81,400/with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

¶32

Being aggrieved with the quantum of compensation, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and perused the records.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has sustained nine injuries in the accident, resulting in quadripraesis i.e., weakness of the body below neck. He was hospitalized for 41 days, required a wheelchair, and lost sensation in both his upper and lower limbs, the

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34948 MFA No. 3343 of 2013

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

permanent disability was consequently assessed at 82% for the whole body, with a 100% loss of earning capacity. Although he has incurred medical expenses of Rs.40,000/the Tribunal granted only Rs.1,10,200/- towards this head. Furthermore, the appellant was previously running a grocery business and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, a fact which the Tribunal erred in taking his income as merely Rs.5,000/- per month. The doctor's advised for two years of complete bed rest, making the Tribunal's assessment of compensation manifestly inadequate.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that he was treated as an inpatient for 41 days and attended outpatient appointments for 23 times and he travelled from his residence to the hospital, the amounts granted under the said heads are meager. The Tribunal wrongly assessed 25% as Contributory Negligence on his part. Therefore, requested for enhancement of compensation.

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34948 MFA No. 3343 of 2013

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

The manner of accident shows the appellant

¶42

was travelling along with his wife and three minor children on the motorcycle and met with an accident with a Bolero pick-up vehicle bearing No.KA-47-2287. It is stated that the driver of the Bolero vehicle driving in a rash and negligent manner, lost control, came onto the extreme right side of the road and dashed the appellant's motorcycle.

¶43

The learned counsel for respondent No.2Insurance Company contended that the motorcycle was overloaded and he lost control over the vehicle and contributed for the negligence and the Tribunal has rightly considered the Contributory Negligence as 25% on part of the appellant. Whereas, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no admissible evidence on record to establish contributory negligence on the part of the appellant/claimant, this Court considering the manner in which the accident occurred, finds it just and reasonable to attribute Contributory Negligence in the

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:34948 MFA No. 3343 of 2013

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

ratio of 90% to the driver of the Bolero vehicle and 10% to

¶47

the appellant/claimant.

¶48

Taking into account the fact that the claimant

¶49

has suffered fracture which is grievous in nature along with nine injuries and that the claimant was an inpatient for 41 days and outpatient for 23 times and he travelled from his residence to the hospital. I deem it appropriate to enhance the compensation under the head 'pain and suffering' by an additional sum of Rs.75,000/-.

¶50

It is also stated that the appellant was running

¶51

grocery shop, no admissible evidence regarding his income. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to enhance the compensation towards 'loss of income' Rs.78,000/- (6,500x12) as against Rs.60,000/-. As he met with an accident in the year 2011, and the claimant was aged 40 years at the time of the accident. In the absence of proof of income, the income is assessed at Rs.5,000/- p.m. by the Tribunal. According to the chart prepared by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, this

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:34948 MFA No. 3343 of 2013

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Court deemed it appropriate of Rs.6,500/- p.m. Therefore,

¶55

the loss of income comes to Rs.78,000/- (Rs.6,500 x 12).

¶56

In the complaint lodged by the wife of the appellant, age is shown as 45 years but in the medical records age is shown as 40 years. Therefore, the Tribunal has considered as he was aged more than 40 years and this Court finds it reasonable to take the future prospects of 25% considering the said age and multiplier as to taken as '14' (6,500+25%=8,125 x 12 x 14 x 82%) towards loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.11,19,300/-. The disability assessed as 82% but the Tribunal considered his functional disability as 100%. This Court finds it reasonable to take permanent disability 82% as per the medical evidence.

¶57

Towards medical expenses of Rs.1,10,200/was awarded by the Tribunal, which is does not call for interference.

¶58

Considering the nature of injuries, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:34948 MFA No. 3343 of 2013

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

amenities, an addition amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded by this Court (Rs.20,000 + Rs.30,000) Rs.50,000/-.

¶62

In view of the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant and on perusal of medical evidence this Court finds it reasonable to grant an sum of Rs.2,00,000/towards future medical expenses as against Rs.50,000/-.

¶63

Towards food and attendance during treatment period Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- an addition amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded i.e., Rs.40,000/- is awarded under this head.

¶64

Towards transportation and conveyance charges during treatment period Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- an addition amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded i.e., Rs.40,000/- is awarded under this head.

¶65

The Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the extra nourishment, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, this Court finds it reasonable to award Rs.40,000/- under the head of extra nourishment.

¶66

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:34948 MFA No. 3343 of 2013

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

Therefore, the appellant is entitled to enhanced

¶69

compensation under the following heads:

¶70

Loss of future earning capacity	:	Rs.	11,19,300/-
Pain and suffering	:	Rs.	75,000/-
Loss of Amenities	:	Rs.	50,000/-
Loss of income	:	Rs.	78,000/-
(6,500x12)
Medical expenses		Rs.	1,10,200/-
Future medical expenses	:	Rs.	2,00,000/-
Attendance charges	:	Rs.	40,000/-
Transportation and Conveyance charges	:	Rs.	40,000/-
Food and extra nourishment	:	Rs.	40,000/-
TOTAL	:	Rs.	17,52.500/-

¶71

In summary, the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.17,52.500/as opposed to Rs.8,81,400/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation amounts to Rs.8,71,100/-, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

¶72

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶73

10 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:34948 MFA No. 3343 of 2013

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

ORDER

¶77

i. The appeal is allowed in part .

¶78

ii. The appellant/claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.8,71,100/-, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶79

iii. Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is directed to pay 90% of the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certificate copy of this order.

¶80