Sri. C S Paramesha Vs Sri. Chanakeshawa

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1016/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, NAGAMANGALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed by the appellant/injured claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 20.09.2016 passed in MVC No.1016/2015, by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Nagamangala, for enhancing the compensation.

¶26

Heard the arguments of both the learned counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is present but has not filed vakalath. However, he has undertaken to file the same in due course of time.

¶27

The petitioner/injured claimant had filed petition

¶28

before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Trial Court considering the entire evidence on record

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38138 MFA No. 4571 of 2019

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

granted an amount of Rs.1,92,861/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of

¶32

deposit. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that

¶34

the appellant met with an accident on 08.07.2013. As per Ex.P.4-wound certificate, he sustained a facture of left humorous and other simple injuries. The injuries sustained

¶35

are as follows:

¶36

"1. Tenderness on front of mid of chest.

¶37

2. Abrasion over front of left shoulder.

¶38

3. Tenderness on back of left elbow joint.

¶39

4. Tenderness on left side neck.

¶40

5. Tenderness on front and mid of right forearm.

¶41

6. Tenderness on left lumber region."

¶42

Injury Nos.1 and 2 are grievous in nature and other

¶43

are simple in nature.

¶44

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38138 MFA No. 4571 of 2019

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

The petitioner/injured claimant has not

¶47

examined the doctor. There is no dispute regarding 'medical expenses' of Rs.1,48,861/- and the same requires no interference. Considering the nature of injuries, as he was hospitalized for six days, this Court finds it reasonable to grant Rs.38,000/- towards 'injuries', Rs.50,000/- towards 'pain and suffering', and Rs.25,000/- towards 'loss of amenities'. Since the accident occurred in the year 2013, the notional income is to be taken as Rs.8,000/- per month, as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The petitioner might not have attended to any work for at least a period of three months due to the injuries sustained, this Court finds it reasonable to award Rs.24,000/- (Rs.8,000 x 3) towards 'loss of income during the laid-up period'. This Court also finds it reasonable to grant Rs.30,000/- towards 'extra nourishment, transportation, and attendant charges'.

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38138 MFA No. 4571 of 2019

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court

¶51

is as below,

¶52

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Medical expenses	1,48,861.00
Injuries	38,000.00
Pain and suffering	50,000.00
Loss of amenities	25,000.00
Loss of income during laid	24,000.00
down period
Transportation, extra	30,000.00
nourishment and attendant charges
Total	3,15,861.00

¶53

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a

¶54

total enhanced compensation of Rs.3,15,861/- along

¶55

with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶56

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶59

6 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:38138 MFA No. 4571 of 2019

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

ii. The judgment and award dated 20.09.2016 passed in MVC No.1016/2015, by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Nagamangala, is modified;

¶63

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,15,861 /- along with interest at 6% p.a., instead of Rs.1,92,861/- granted by the tribunal, from the date of petition till the date of realization,.

¶64

iv. The case against respondent No.2 has already dismissed. It is stated that there is no driving lisence and the insurance company is absolved from paying the liability.

¶65

v. Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the amount within one month from the date of this order.

¶66

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:38138 MFA No. 4571 of 2019

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

vi. On such deposit, petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same.

¶69

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶70

AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 81

Sri. C S Paramesha v. Sri. Chanakeshawa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. C S Paramesha v. Sri. Chanakeshawa

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

Sri. Ramaswamy Vs Mr. Venkatesh

Mr K Madhava Kotian Vs Mr Suresh Puthran

Smt Jayalakshmi Vs Balachandran @ Balasubramani N

The Deputy Commissioner Vs Kariyamma

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Shakunthalamma

Sri N S Jagadish Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.