Shivanna @ Shivappa Vs Syed Babu S v

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNIVERSAL SAMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD K.V.D TOWERS, NO. 7/3 2ND FLOOR, ABOVE BORDAY'S FINANCE OPPOSITE 100 FEET ROAD, INDIRA NAGAR, BANGALORE 38

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.D.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE R2; V/O DTD: 24.10.2025 NOTICE TO R4 TO R6 IS DISPENSED)

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44859 MFA No. 4477 of 2021

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.01.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1131/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 16^th January 2021, passed by

¶27

the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Hosadurga, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.1131/2018, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶28

This matter is listed for hearing on admission. With the consent of the learned counsels appearing for both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶29

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶30

Brief facts of the case are that, on 07.05.2018, when the claimant (in MVC No.1131/2018) was standing near

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44859 MFA No. 4477 of 2021

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Hagalakere hand post beside Hosadurga-Srirampura main

¶34

road, he met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of TATA Indica Car bearing Registration No.KA-16-M-3313 by its driver. As a result, he sustained traumatic compound type II fracture middle 1/3 of tibia. He was admitted as an inpatient in SSIMS Hospital, Davanagere from 08.05.2018 to 18.05.2018, and spent substantial amount towards medical expenses. The claimant was aged about 64 years at the time of the accident. He was an agriculturist earning Rs.40,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered from permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation.

¶35

Respondent No.1 was the owner and respondent No.2 was the insurer of offending vehicle. Respondent No.2-insurer filed its written statement denying petition averments and denied its liability to pay compensation. It

¶36

is further stated that accident occured due to negligence of rider of motorcycle, who was crossing the road

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44859 MFA No. 4477 of 2021

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

unmindfully. The driver of the car had no valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶40

From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal

¶41

framed necessary issues, for its determination. MVC No.1131/2018 was clubbed with MVC No.1126/2018 and

¶42

the Tribunal has recorded common evidences in both the cases. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. The Tribunal assessed the age of the claimant in MVC No.1131/2018 as 64 years, his notional income as Rs.9,000/- per month, his disability at 12% to the whole body, applied the multiplier as `7' and awarded following

¶43

amount of compensation:

¶44

Particulars	Amount (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	80,000
Medical expenses	51,000
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	15,000

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:44859 MFA No. 4477 of 2021

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Loss of income during laid up period	27,000
Loss of amenities and happiness and frustration of life	70,000
Loss of future income	91,000
Total	3,34,000

¶49

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

¶50

appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer.

¶51

Facts of the accident and injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident are not in dispute. Respondents have not challenged the impugned judgment and award. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the same.

¶52

The main grievance of the claimant is that income taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. According to the contention of the claim petitioner, claimant was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the claimant as Rs.9,000/- per month. Admittedly, no materials were placed on record to prove his income as Rs.40,000/- per month. Comparing to the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:44859 MFA No. 4477 of 2021

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Legal Services Authority, the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, following the chart, income of the claimant is taken as Rs.12,500/- per month.

¶57

PW3 has stated that claimant has sustained permanent disability of 36% to the right lower limb and Tribunal has taken 1/3^rd of the same i.e. 12% which is proper. Undisputedly, the age of the claimant was 64 years at the time of the accident, therefore, the suitable multiplier applicable is ‘7’. Thus, the loss of future income comes to Rs.1,26,000/- (Rs.12,500/-x12x7x12%).

¶58

As per the Wound Certificate, the claimant sustained compound fracture middle part of right tibia and abrasion over left elbow. Therefore, it might not be possible for him to attend to his regular work at least for a period of four to six months. Thereby, he lost his earnings, which requires to be compensated.

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:44859 MFA No. 4477 of 2021

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

The amount of compensation awarded towards

¶63

attendant charges, special diet and conveyance charges are on the lower side and requires to be enhanced.

¶64

Accordingly, following amount of compensation is awarded:

¶65

Particulars	Amount (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	80,000
Medical expenses	51,000
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	25,000
Loss of income during laid up period (Rs.12,500X4)	50,000
Loss of amenities and happiness and frustration of life	70,000
Loss of future income	1,26,000
Total	4,02,000
*Less*compensation awarded by the Tribunal	3,34,000
Enhanced compensation	68,000

¶66

Undisputedly, the respondent No.2 is the insurer of

¶67

the offending vehicle and policy was in force as on the date of the accident. Hence, respondent No.2 is liable to

¶68

8 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:44859 MFA No. 4477 of 2021

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

pay the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.68,000/-

¶72

with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶73

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

¶74

ORDER

¶75

a) The Appeal is allowed in part .

¶76

b) The judgment and award dated 16^th January 2021, passed in

¶77

MVC.No.1131/2018, by the S enior Civil Judge and MACT, Hosadurga, stands modified.

¶78

c) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.68,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

¶79

d) The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award.

¶80

e) Since, amount enhanced is marginal, therefore, the entire amount with interest shall be released in favour of the claimant, after due identification.

¶81