Mr. Abdul Jabbar Vs Mr. Nazi Ahmmad

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1591/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-IV, D.K. MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under

¶27

Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 02.08.2016 passed in MVC NO.1591/2013 on the file of the III Additional District Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-IV, D.K. Mangaluru, for enhancing the compensation.

¶28

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶29

the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 served and unrepresented. The

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:36134 MFA No. 3347 of 2017

¶31

3 -

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the

¶34

sake of convenience.

¶35

As per the wound certificate and evidence of PW2,

¶36

the petitioner sustained the following injuries i.e.,

¶37

1) Bilateral Poriorbital Echymosis with Infra Orbital Oedema,

¶38

2) Laceration of Nosal Bridge,

¶39

3) Swelling tenderness right 12% tyfe onter-trochartric fracture of right hip and

¶40

4) CT Face and head, fracture of Maxilla-anterior and lateral alveolar fracture of left with fracture bone, fracture of nasal etormoidal fracture right and other multiple abrasions all over the body.

¶41

He was admitted to hospital on 02.03.2013 and discharged

¶42

on 11.3.2013 as per discharge summary. However, PW3 in his evidence stated that he was discharged on 01.4.2013 and relied upon the case sheet issued by the concerned hospital.

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:36134 MFA No. 3347 of 2017

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

It is stated that the petitioner was aged 48 years

¶46

working as cook in PA college canteen and earning Rs.10,000/- pm. But no evidence is produced regarding his income, therefore as he met with accident in the year 2013, considering the age and occupation, this court finds it reasonable to take his notional income of Rs.8,000/p.m. as per the guidelines of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and the multiplier is to be taken as 13. As per the evidence of PW2 who assessed the disability as 18.5% and 1/3^rd of the same to be taken towards permanent disability. Therefore, the loss of future income comes to Rs.8000 X 12 x 13 x 6% = Rs.74,880/-.

¶47

Further, the amount granted towards pain and suffering is enhanced to an amount of Rs.40,000/- and further under the head loss of amenities, an amount of Rs.20,000 /- is granted. Also, the amount towards Medical bills of Rs.18,366/- is not disputed. Also, the amount granted for extra nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges is to be enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. He

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:36134 MFA No. 3347 of 2017

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

might not have attended any other work atleast for a period of 3 months. Therefore, this court finds it reasonable to grant loss of income during laid up period is

¶51

Rs.8000 x 3 = Rs.24,000/-.

¶52

Thus in all, components awarded by this court

¶53

are as below,

¶54

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Loss of future income	74,880
Pain and suffering	40,000
Loss of amenities	20,000
Loss of income during laid up period	24,000
Medical expenses	18,366
Transportation, extra	30,000
nourishment and
attendant charges
Total	2,07,246

¶55

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total

¶56

enhanced compensation of Rs.2,07,246/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶57

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:36134 MFA No. 3347 of 2017

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

It was held by the tribunal that the driver of the

¶60

lorry has no valid fitness certificate, permit and tax details. Hence, the owner was held liable to pay the compensation and insurance company was exonerated. Considering the facts that the petitioner is a cook and earning meager amount. Hence, this court finds it reasonable to order for pay and recovery. Therefore, insurance company is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.2,07,246/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and is at liberty to recover the same from the owner.

¶61

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i. Appeal is allowed .

¶64

ii. The judgment and award dated 02.08.2016 passed in MVC NO.1591/2013 on the file of the III Additional District Judge and Motor Accidents Claims TribunalIV, D.K. Mangaluru, is modified.

¶65

7 -

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:36134 MFA No. 3347 of 2017

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,07,246/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Seven Thousand and Two Hundred and Forty Six only) along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of realization, instead of Rs.72,000/granted by the tribunal.

¶69

iv. Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the amount within one month from the date of this order.

¶70

v. Respondent No.3 is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle i.e., respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle by due process of law.

¶71

vi. On such deposit, petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the interest accrued on the same.

¶72

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:36134 MFA No. 3347 of 2017

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

vii. As per the order dated 09.02.2024 vide application I.A.No.1/2017 delay was condoned with condition that claimant is not entitled for interest for delay period of 159 days.

¶75

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶76

AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Mr. Abdul Jabbar v. Mr. Nazi Ahmmad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Abdul Jabbar v. Mr. Nazi Ahmmad

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

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Naveen Kumar M @ Naveen

Shivanna H N Vs Madhav Naik

Chinnappa Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Dharmapal

Mr Lathesh Vs Mr Balakrishna

T G Vadiraj Vs the Commissioner