Sri N R Manu Vs Sri Bharath R K

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.12.2017, PASSED IN MVC NO.255/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHANNARAYAPATNA, BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE AFORESAID MVC CASE UP TO RS.15,00,000/- AND GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶23

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the claimant against the

¶27

judgment and award dated 27.12.2017, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Channarayapatna, (for short ‘Tribunal’), in MVC No.255/2016.

¶28

Though appeal is slated for admission, with

¶29

consent of learned advocates appearing for both the sides, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:46104 MFA No. 450 of 2021

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

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

¶34

The brief facts of the case of both the parties before the Tribunal were that:

¶35

On 23.08.2015, at about 3.30 p.m., when the claimant was traveling in a Car bearing Reg.No.KA-13-B1976 from Channarayapatna to Shravanabelagola, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Car by its driver. As a result, claimant sustained grievous injuries and suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, prayed to award compensation.

¶36

The respondent No.1 was the owner and respondent No.2 was the insurer of the offending Car. Respondent No.1 - owner has not filed objections. Respondent No.2 - insurer has filed written statement denying the fact of accident as well as its liability to pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:46104 MFA No. 450 of 2021

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

From the rival contentions of the parties, the

¶41

Tribunal had framed necessary issues.

¶42

The claimant to prove his case, examined two

¶43

witnesses as PW-1 and CW-1 and marked 15 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-15 and Exs.C.1 to C.5.

¶44

The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment, awarded the following amount of

¶45

compensation:

¶46

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Medical expenses	1,46,002
Food, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges	30,000
Loss of income during laid up period	30,000
Pain and agony	40,000
Loss of amenities	40,000
Loss of future income	1,88,892
Future medical expenses	30,000
Total	5,04,894

¶47

Being aggrieved by the said award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46104 MFA No. 450 of 2021

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer.

¶51

10. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate; The Tribunal has not considered the income of the claimant properly and the disability assessed is also on the lower side; The compensation awarded under other heads are also on the lower side. Hence, prayed for enhancement of the compensation.

¶52

11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has properly considered the case of the claimant and has awarded a just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for any interference by this Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶53

Fact of accident, injuries sustained by the claimant are not seriously disputed. The main contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are that the

¶54

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46104 MFA No. 450 of 2021

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Tribunal has not properly assessed the income, as well as the disability. The amount of compensation awarded under the other heads are also on the lower side. With these reasons, learned counsel for the appellant prayed to enhance the compensation.

¶57

I have gone through the materials on records. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is partly tenable.

¶58

14. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment assessed the age of the claimant as 23 years at the time of the accident, has taken his income as Rs.7,500/- per month, applied the multiplier of `18', assessed the disability as 11.66% to the whole body and awarded the compensation.

¶59

15. On re-appreciating the evidence available on record, the amount of compensation under some of the heads are on the lower side, that requires enhancement.

¶60

7 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:46104 MFA No. 450 of 2021

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

The claimant has contended that he was earning Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- p.m. but he was not able to prove it. The Tribunal has taken notional income of the claimant as Rs.7,500/- per month. Comparing to the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, it is on lower side. Hence following the notional income chart, the income of the claimant is taken at Rs.9,000/- per month.

¶64

The claimant has examined the doctor as CW-1, who has stated that the claimant has suffered fracture Acetabulam left, dislocation left hip, tenderness on chest, tenderness TL Spine, tenderness on forehead and has assessed disability at 35% to the lower limb and 11.66% disability to the whole body. Looking at the nature of injuries and restrictions of the movements due to the said fractures and dislocation of left limb, the functional disability as assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the same is taken at 15% to the whole body.

¶65

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46104 MFA No. 450 of 2021

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

The claimant is said to be an agriculturist and owns family agricultural lands. The fracture and dislocation of the acetabulum and the consequences of the said injury were explained in detail by CW-1. Considering the same, it appears he might not have been in a position to attend to his work for a period of 4 to 5 months and would have lost his earnings during that time.

¶68

Looking at the materials available on record, amount of compensation awarded under the head pain and sufferings, loss of amenities and miscellaneous expenses are on lower side, which requires enhancement.

¶69

For the aforesaid discussions, the claimant is

¶70

entitled to following amount of compensation:

¶71

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Pain and suffering	60,000
Medical expenses	1,46,002
Attendant expenses, special diet	40,000
and conveyance charges
Loss of income during laid up period	45,000
(Rs.9,000 x 5)
Loss of income due to permanent	2,91,600

¶72

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:46104 MFA No. 450 of 2021

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

disability
(Rs.9,000 x 12 x 18 x 15%)
Loss of amenities	40,000
Future medical expenses	30,000
Total	6,52,602
Amount awarded by the Tribunal	5,04,894
Enhancement-	1,47,708
Rounded off-	1,48,000