M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Mr Sonu Kumar Yadav

M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MOTOR CLAIMS HUB, NO.144, 2ND FLOOR, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 01 REPRESNTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SHUBHRAM COMPLEX M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE- 01.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SMT. MANJULA N TEJASWI.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka

¶14

MR SONU KUMAR YADAV S/O CHANDESHWAR YADAV AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT BANSOPALI, SIWAN BHIAR- 841 227.

¶15

MR. SURAJ KUMAR SONAR S/O UTTAM BAHADUR #1525, HSR LAYOUT SECTOR W-2, BANGALORE- 560 102.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.T.GURUDEVA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DTD 04.09.2025 NOTICE TO R2 D/W)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:36640 MFA No. 4535 of 2018

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.5226/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 15TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & 23RD ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (SCCH-19), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,48,891/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 03.03.2018 passed in MVC No.5226/2016 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & XV Additional Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short) for quantum of compensation.

¶24

The injured claimant had filed claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:36640 MFA No. 4535 of 2018

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.4,48,891/with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the said order, Insurance Company preferred this appeal.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the petitioner/respondent herein met with an accident on 14.02.2016 and he was admitted as an inpatient only from 18.02.2016 to 22.02.2016.The injured has neither proved his income nor his occupation, and has also failed to examine his employer to substantiate his claim. However, the Tribunal, relying on his oral statement, has assumed his income to be Rs.12,000/- per month on the basis that he is a skilled worker engaged in welding work.

¶29

PW.2-doctor, stated that the injured sustained 14% disability to the whole body. However, he has also clarified that the fracture had united, the petitioner requires two to four months to recover and that he is

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:36640 MFA No. 4535 of 2018

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

capable of performing all physical activities with respect to the upper limb. Therefore, such disability cannot be treated as permanent or functionally disability and ought not to have been taken into account by the Tribunal for awarding compensation.

¶33

The petitioner claims to have sustained two fractures in the accident alleged to have occurred on 14.02.2016. However, he did not take treatment until 18.02.2016 and no explanation has been provided for the delay. As per Ex.13, he was hospitalized for only six days from 18.02.2016 to 22.02.2016. Moreover, the police complaint was lodged only on 19.02.2016, five days after the incident. In light of these circumstances, the appellant respectfully prays for setting aside or appropriate modification of the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶34

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

¶35

appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1. Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:36640 MFA No. 4535 of 2018

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Admittedly, the injured claimant met with an accident on 14.02.2016, as per the discharge summary and wound certificate. However, the records indicate that he took treatment only from 18.04.2016. In Ex.P.7-wound certificate, it is mentioned that the claimant was initially treated at Manipal, Pallikere, but no medical records from that said hospital have been produced before the Court.

¶39

Learned counsel for the appellant objected, the questioning that how the petitioner could have remained without any treatment despite sustaining two fractures. He produced only one medical receipt to show that he has taken treatment in the hospital. However, the wound certificate dated 18.02.2016, itself contains an endorsement stating that the claimant was initially treated at Manipal, Pallikere. In view of this endorsement, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is not accepted.

¶40

It was further stated that the claimant was a skilled worker and the Tribunal had assessed his income as

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:36640 MFA No. 4535 of 2018

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Rs.12,000/- per month. However, since no proof of income

¶44

was produced, this Court, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA), considers it appropriate to fix his monthly income at Rs.9,500/- instead of Rs.12,000/-. PW.2 assessed the permanent disability at 17% as per the wound certificate and discharge summary, which recorded that the claimant had sustained fractures of both bones in the right forearm. He underwent ORIF with DCP for the radius and ulna on 19.02.2016 and was hospitalized for five days. Accordingly, his disability was assessed as 17%. However, PW.2, doctor also stated that the fracture had united and that the patient would take two to four months for recovery. The Tribunal had taken the whole body disability at 14%, but this Court, considering 1/3^rd of the 17% limb disability, finds it reasonable to assess the functional disability at 5%. Considering the claimant's age as 23 years and applying the multiplier of ‘18’, the loss of

¶45

7 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:36640 MFA No. 4535 of 2018

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

future income is calculated as Rs.9,500 × 12 × 18 × 5% =

¶49

Rs.1,02,600/-.

¶50

The claimant might not have been able to work

¶51

for at least for a period of two months due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to award a sum of Rs.19,000/-(9,500x2) under the head of 'loss of income during the laid-up period'.

¶52

The amount awarded under heads of

¶53

transportation, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- and the compensation towards loss of amenities is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-.

¶54

The compensation awarded under the heads of pain and suffering, medical expenses and future medical expenses are holds good.

¶55

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:36640 MFA No. 4535 of 2018

¶57

8 -

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Compensation under Amount in
different heads (Rs.)
Loss of future income 1,02,600/-
Pain and suffering 25,000/-
Medical expenses 33,011/-
Loss of income during 19,000/-
treatment laid up period
Transportation, 15,000/-
nourishment, conveyance
and attendant charges
during treatment period
For future medical 20,000/-
expenses
Loss of amenities 10,000/-
Total 2,24,611/-