Irshad Vs H.B.Vasu

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD, BRANCH OFFICE SAGAR, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE UDUPI BOX NO.78, JEWEL PLAZA, 1ST FLOOR, MARUTHI VEETHIKA UDUPI 576101 REP BY ITS MANAGER

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 13.6.2022)

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:1541-DB MFA No. 4190/2018

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.896/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA), KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and

¶23

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

¶26

“Whether the compensation awarded to the

¶27

appellant/claimant in MVC No.896/2015 on the file of the Additional District Judge and Additional MACT, Udupi (sitting at Kundapura), Kundapur, is just and fair?” is the question involved in this case.

¶28

The appellant was the claimant and respondent Nos.1 and 2 in this appeal were respondent Nos.1 and 2 in MVC No.896/2015 on the file of the Additional District Judge and Additional MACT, Udupi, (sitting at Kundapura), Kundapura, (for short the ‘Tribunal’). For the purpose of convenience, the

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:1541-DB MFA No. 4190/2018

¶31

parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶32

On 12.8.2015 at about 7.00 am., when the claimant was driving the jeep bearing Registration No.KA-20-Z-3284, near Batradi, Karkunje village, within the limits of Kundapura Traffic Police station, tipper lorry bearing Registration No.KA.15.A.0891 hit the jeep of the claimant. In the accident, the claimant suffered injuries. At the time of the accident, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the registered owner and insurer respectively of the tipper lorry bearing Registration No.KA.15.A.0891.

¶33

The claimant filed MVC No.896/2015 contending that due to the accidental injuries he suffered permanent physical disability and loss of future earnings. He contended that the accident and the consequential damage to him were caused solely due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the tipper lorry. He alleged that he has spent huge amount towards medical expenses. Thus, he claimed a compensation of `30.00 lakhs from the respondents.

¶34

Respondent No.1 did not contest the petition. Respondent No.2 contested the petition denying the

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:1541-DB MFA No. 4190/2018

¶37

involvement of the insured tipper lorry in the accident, injuries, disability of the claimant, his age and income and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶38

Before the Tribunal, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and the doctor who treated him in KMC Hospital, Manipal, as PW.2. He got marked Exs.P1 to P14. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced. The insurance policy was marked with consent as Ex.R1.

¶39

The Tribunal on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, by the impugned award held that the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the tipper lorry bearing Registration No.KA.15.A.0891. The Tribunal, notionally assessed the income of the claimant at 9,000/- p.m., based on the evidence of PW.2 the disability of the claimant was assessed as 8% to the whole body, considering the age of the claimant as 28 years, applied 17 multiplier awarded compensation of 1,46,880/- on the head of loss of future earnings.

¶40

The Tribunal, in all awarded a compensation of ` 2,93,152 /- on different heads as follows:

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:1541-DB MFA No. 4190/2018

¶43

Sl. Particulars Amount in
No (`)
1 Injury, pain and 40,000.00
sufferings
2 Medical expenses 84,772.00
3 Loss of earning 4,500.00
during treatment
4 Bed rest 9,000.00
5 Loss of future 1,46,880.00
earning capacity
6 Conveyance, 8,000.00
nourishment and
attendant charges
Total 2,93,152.00

¶44

Smt. Swati G.Hegde, learned counsel for Sri H.Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for the

¶45

appellant/claimant submits that having regard to the evidence of doctor/PW.2 and the other evidence on record, the disability considered by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The claimant was working as a driver and he has suffered total functional disability. That the compensation awarded on the other heads is also on the lower side.

¶46

Sri Ravish Beeni, learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurer justifies the assessment of disability and compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1541-DB MFA No. 4190/2018

¶48

The insurer has not challenged the finding of the Tribunal regarding the occurrence of the accident due to the actionable negligence of the driver of the tipper lorry, age and occupation of the claimant.

¶49

This Court, by order dated 2.12.2024, on hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, with their consent had referred the matter to the Superintendent of District Hosptial, Udupi to get the claimant examined by constituting a Medical Board for assessment of his functional disability. Accordingly, the Medical Board assessed the claimant and has given a report that as on the date of the assessment of the disability, the claimant has no functional disability.

¶50

In view of the findings of the Medical Board, this Court does not find any ground to enhance the permanent physical disability assessed by the doctor. There was no proof of actual income of the claimant. Considering his occupation, the prevailing rate of wages and cost of index during 2015, the notional income considered by the Tribunal at `9,000/- needs no interference. The claimant also does not dispute that his age as on the date of the accident was 28 years and applicable

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:1541-DB MFA No. 4190/2018

¶53

multiplier is 17. Therefore, the compensation awarded on the head of loss of future earnings needs to be maintained.

¶54

So far as the compensation awarded on the head of

¶55

pain and suffering, as per Ex.P3-wound certificate issued by the KMC Hospital, Manipal, the claimant had suffered the following injuries:

¶56

i.4 cm., sutured lacerated wound over parietal region of head left side;

¶57

ii.Abrasions over left knee;

¶58

iii.Blunt Trauma Abdomen with perforation of small intestine.

¶59

Ex.P9 – Discharge summary shows that the

¶60

claimant underwent laparotomy with distal jejunum and ileum anastamosis on 16.8.2015 and found traumatic intestinal perforation and gangrene. The evidence of PW.2 shows that infected part of the intestine was cut and removed and uninfected parts were rejoined. PW.2 deposed that in such cases there are chances of getting abdominal pain and there is likelihood of pain, suffering and deficiency of abdominal wall.

¶61

Considering the aforesaid evidence, the compensation awarded on the head pain and suffering is

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1541-DB MFA No. 4190/2018

¶63

inadequate and awarding of `60,000/- on the said head would meet the ends of justice.

¶64

The medical expenses awarded at 84,772/- were based on the evidence adduced. Therefore, the same needs to be maintained and rounded off to 85,000/-.

¶65

Having regard to the nature of injuries and treatment, the claimant would not have been able to attend to his work for four months, which comes to 36,000/- (9,000/x4).

¶66

The Tribunal held that the claimant was admitted for 13 days in KMC Hospital, Manipal. Hence, considering the period of treatment and regarding the medical condition of the claimant, the compensation awarded on the head of diet, attendant charges and transportation has to be enhanced to `20,000/-.

¶67

Having regard to the nature of injuries and the evidence of PW.2, the claimant would not have attended to his regular pursuits and enjoyed the amenities like any other normal persons for atleast 4 to 6 months. In fact, his problem affects food intake itself. Hence, considering the same, it would be just and proper to award `30,000/- on the head of

¶68

9 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:1541-DB MFA No. 4190/2018

¶70

loss of amenities. Therefore, the just compensation payable is

¶71

as follows:

¶72

Sl. No	Particulars	Amount in (`)
1	Injury, pain and sufferings	60,000.00
2	Medical expenses	85,000.00
3	Loss of earning during treatment	36,000.00
4	Loss of future earning capacity	1,46,880.00
5	Conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges	20,000.00
6	Loss of amenities	30,000.00
	Total	3,77,880.00

¶73

Accordingly, the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of 3,77,880/- - 2,93,152/- = 84,728/rounded off to 85,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% pa., and the appeal deserves to be allowed in part.

¶74

Hence, the following:

¶75

ORDER

¶76

i) The appeal is partly allowed;

¶77

(a) The appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of `85,000/- with interest at 6% pa., from the date of petition till its realization;

¶78

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:1541-DB MFA No. 4190/2018

¶79

(b) Respondent No.2 – insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶80

(c) On such deposit, the Tribunal shall digitally release the said amount to the claimant on furnishing required documents.

¶81

iii) Transmit the TCR to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶82

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶83

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶84

ND

¶85

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Irshad v. H.B.Vasu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irshad v. H.B.Vasu

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 R Pavithra Vs Sri Sathyanarayana Prasad H T

Sri Sridhar G Vs the Director Karnataka Government Insurance

Alwyn Peter D Sa Vs Rita Blocilla D Sa

The Manager Vs Smt Pramila

Sri. Sreenivas Vs the Managing Director

Smt. Gowramma Vs Syed Fakruddin