Sri. a. Sagaya Raj Vs Sri. Govindaraju H E

SRI. A. SAGAYA RAJ, S/O SRI. ANTHONIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/AT NO.55, AMRUTHNAGARA, CHALKERE KALYANA NAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 043.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. SURESH M LATUR., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka

¶16

SRI. GOVINDARAJU H.E., S/O SRI. ERAPPA, NO.98, NEW NO.112 MEGINAPALYA, CHELKERE K.N. POST, BENGALURU – 560 043

¶17

THE MANAGER, BHARATHI AXA GENERAL, INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., 1^ST FLOOR, FERNS ICON, SURVEY NO.28, DODDANAKUNDI BENGALURU – 560 037.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 15.11.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41657 MFA No. 4380 of 2019

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING THAT THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.01.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.6085/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XX A.C.M.M. AND MEMBER, M.A.C.T, BENGALURU (SCCH-24), MAY KINDLY BE MODIFIED AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION WITH INTEREST PER ANNUM MAY KINDLY BE GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation arising out of judgment and award dated 09.01.2019 in MVC No.6085/2017 on the file of the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge And XX A.C.M.M. And M.A.C.T, Bengaluru (SCCH-24), allowing the claim petition partly granting compensation of Rs.1,32,296/along with 8% interest per annum as against Rs.10 lakhs claimed by the claimant.

¶27

The date of accident, involvement of vehicle,

¶28

injuries suffered in the accident, and the liability to pay

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41657 MFA No. 4380 of 2019

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

the compensation is not in dispute, the only dispute is with respect to the inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶32

Heard Sri.Suresh M. Latur, learned counsel for the claimant/appellant and Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – insurance company. Vide order dated 15.11.2023, Notice of this appeal on respondent No.1 was dispensed with.

¶33

Sri. Suresh M. Latur, with all vehemence

¶34

submits that the claimant had suffered fracture of left patella and as per the Doctor, who was examined as PW-2, the disability resulted is 18.5% to the particular limb and 9.25% disability to the whole-body. Though the accident has occurred in the year 2017, the Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/- per month, instead of Rs.11,000/- fixed as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) and disability at 5% to the whole body. In view of the same, the Tribunal

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41657 MFA No. 4380 of 2019

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

having taken lower income and so also disability at meager percentage awarded underside compensation under all heads, except the compensation under ‘medical expenses’ which requires reconsideration. Further, he has submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head ‘loss of amenities’ which requires reconsideration at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, sought to allow this appeal.

¶38

Refuting the submissions of Sri.Suresh M.Latur, Sri.B.C.Shivannegowda, submitted that the Tribunal having regard to the injuries suffered, i.e., fracture to the left patella appropriately considered the income in the absence of proof of income at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month and disability at 5% and awarded appropriate compensation, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41657 MFA No. 4380 of 2019

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶42

parties, perused the appeal papers and so also the trial Court record, the only point that would arise for consideration of this Court is:

¶43

“Whether the claimant / appellant has made out

¶44

any case for enhancement of compensation?”

¶45

My answer to the above point for consideration

¶46

is ‘partly in affirmative’ for the following reasons:

¶47

It is not in dispute that the appellant had suffered fracture of left patella, which according to the Doctor who was examined as PW-2 resulted in 18.5% functional disability to the left lower limb and to the whole-body at the rate of 9.25%. The year of accident was 2017, the Tribunal has failed to consider the income at Rs.11,000/fixed as per chart, instead the Tribunal has taken income at Rs.8,000/- which is erroneous in nature. The Tribunal having regard to the injuries suffered must have awarded appropriate compensation. On a glance of the compensation awarded under various heads except

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41657 MFA No. 4380 of 2019

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

‘medical expenses’ is meager when compared to the

¶51

injuries suffered and disability assessed.

¶52

Considering the fact that the appellant was working as a driver, the disability is taken at 7% instead of 5% taken by the Tribunal and the income at Rs.11,000/-.

¶53

In summary, the total compensation is redetermined by this Court under various heads are as follows:

¶54

Sl.	HEAD			COMPEN	SATION
No.				Bythe Tribunal	Bythis Court
1.	Pain and Sufferings	:	Rs.	20,000/-	40,000/-
2.	Attendant Charges, Extra Nutritious food and conveyance expenses	:	Rs.	10,000/-	15,000/-
3.	Medical Expenses	:	Rs.	9,296/-	9,296/-
4.	Loss of Future Income (Rs.11,000 x 12 x 15 x 7%)	:	Rs.	72,000/-	1,38,600/-
5.	Loss of earning during laid up period	:	Rs.	16,000/-	33,000/-
6.	Future Medical Expenses	:	Rs.	5,000/-	5,000/-
7.	Loss of Amenities	:	Rs.	0	30,000/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	1,32,296/-	2,70,896/-

¶55

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The total compensation re-determined by this Court works out

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:41657 MFA No. 4380 of 2019

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

to Rs.2,70,896/- as against Rs.1,32,296/- awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant – claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.1,38,600/- (Rs.2,70,896

¶59

- Rs.1,32,296) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within Six Weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

¶60

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

i) The appeal is Allowed-In-Part .

¶63

ii) The judgment and award dated 09.01.2019, in MVC No.6085/2017 on the file of the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge And XX A.C.M.M. And M.A.C.T, Bengaluru (SCCH-24) is modified.

¶64

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41657 MFA No. 4380 of 2019

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

iii) The appellant – claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.1,38,600/(Rs.2,70,896 - Rs.1,32,296) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. Insurer shall deposit the compensation stated supra before the concerned Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶67

iv) Upon deposit, the entire amount along with interest shall be released in favour of the appellant upon proper identification.

¶68

v) In the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.

¶69

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶70

JJ

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri. a. Sagaya Raj v. Sri. Govindaraju H E

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. a. Sagaya Raj v. Sri. Govindaraju H E

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

Punith S R Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri Srinivasa K a Vs Sri Ragavendra P

Sri Somaiah Vs Sri Basavanna

Sri Lal Ahmed Kareemullah Vs Sri Santhosha K S

Mr. Keshava M. Poojary Vs Mr. Yogendra Poojary

Mr. Rasool Khan Vs Smt Samshad