J. Shivakumar Vs Kumara R

J. SHIVAKUMAR S/O. JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.606/1 RAILWAY STATION ROAD K.R. SAGARA VILLAGE BEELAGOLA HOBLI AND POST SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK-571 607 MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI SYED ABDUL SABOOR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

KUMARA R. S/O. M.V. RAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT MANUGANAHALLI VILLAGE HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 103.

¶16

THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. L36/D, IN FROM OF OPP. NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND BENGALURU NEELAGIR ROAD MYSURU-570 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI ANJAN KUMAR B.N., ADVOCATE, FOR R-1, AND SRI B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2)

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:33680-DB MFA No. 544 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V. ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 3-9-2021 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.693 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, M.A.C.T., MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T.)

¶26

This appeal is filed by the claimant-injured challenging the judgment and award dated 3-9-2021 passed in M.V.C. No.693 of 2019 on the file of the learned VII Additional District Judge and Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mysuru, whereby, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.9,79,500/with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶27

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

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:33680-DB MFA No. 544 of 2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Brief facts of the case are that on 11-5-2019 at 10:50 a.m., when Sri J. Shivakumar was riding motorcycle, bearing Registration No.KA-11 W-7571, near J.K. Tyre Factory in front of Jungle Daba, Mysuru, the driver of a lorry, bearing Registration No.KA-09 A-7459, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant, as a result, he sustained grievous injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

¶31

Heard Sri Syed Abdul Saboor, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, Sri Anjan Kumar B.N., learned counsel for respondent No.1, and Sri B.C. Shivanne Gowda, learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate one. Prior to accident, the claimant was working as a Sales Manager and earning salary of Rs.28,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs.11,000/- per month, which is on lower side. The claimant sustained permanent physically disability at 54%, but the Tribunal has considered it

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:33680-DB MFA No. 544 of 2022

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

at 18%. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under

¶36

the heads of 'marriage prospects'. Hence, he prayed to enhance the compensation.

¶37

Per contra , the learned counsel for respondent No.2Insurance Company, supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded just and reasonable compensation under each heads, which does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers including original records of the Tribunal, the following point would arise for our consideration in this appeal:

¶39

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?

¶40

In the case on hand, respondent No.2-Insurance Company has not disputed the accident in question and liability to pay the compensation to the claimant.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:33680-DB MFA No. 544 of 2022

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

The claimant, on oath, has examined PW3-Dr. Kiran

¶44

Kumar. From the evidence of PW3 and the documents produced clearly shows that the claimant has lost first metatarsal bond and medial metatarsal bone. It also shows that the claimant has sustained crush injury on his right foot. As per the opinion of the Doctor, the disability in respect of right limb would be around 54% and it would be 18% to the whole body. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability. Hence, no interference is called for in this regard. The claimant has stated that prior to accident, he was working as Sales Manager in Comfort Steel Factory and earning Rs.28,000/- per month. However, to substantiate the same, the claimant has not furnished any document. Accident is of the year 2019. In the absence of any proof of income, taking note of the Circular issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority as well as the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru, we deem it appropriate to reassess the notional income of the claimant at Rs.14,000/- per month. The claimant was aged 32 years as on the date of accident. As per the decision of the

¶45

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SMT. SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:33680-DB MFA No. 544 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

ANOTHER reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 , multiplier applicable to

¶50

the age of the claimant is '16'. Thus, the compensation payable under the head of ‘loss of income due to disability' would be Rs.4,83,840/- (14,000 X 18% X 12 X 16).

¶51

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.77,000/towards 'loss of income during laid-up period'. The material discloses that the claimant was admitted in the Hospital for a period of thirty-three days and had taken bed rest for a period of seven months. Therefore, we enhance to Rs.1,00,000/- from Rs.77,000/- under this head.

¶52

The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards 'loss of amenities'. Considering the nature of injuries and discomfort and a period of rest, the claimant has undergone, we further enhance Rs.45,000/- (Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal). Hence, Rs.75,000/- is awarded under this head.

¶53

Further, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards 'pain and sufferings', Rs.33,000/- towards 'attendant charges, food and nourishment', Rs.10,000/towards 'conveyance', Rs.3,49,243/towards 'medical

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:33680-DB MFA No. 544 of 2022

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

expenses' and Rs.50,000/- towards 'future medical treatment',

¶57

same are maintained.

¶58

Thus, the appellant/claimant is entitled for the

¶59

following compensation:

¶60

HEADS	Rs.
Pain and sufferings	50,000.00
Attendant charges, food and nourishment	33,000.00
Conveyance	10,000.00
Medical expenses	3,49,243.00
Loss of income due to disability	4,83,840.00
Loss of income during laid-up period	1,00,000.00
Future medical treatment	50,000.00
Loss of amenities	75,000.00
TOTAL	11,51,083.00
Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal(Rs.9,79,403/- and Rounded off)	9,79,500.00
ENHANCED COMPENSATION	1,71,583.00

¶61

In the result, we pass the following:

¶62

O R D E R

¶63

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶64

ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The appellant/claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.11,51,083/- as against Rs.9,79,500/- awarded by the

¶65

8 -

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:33680-DB MFA No. 544 of 2022

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,71,583/- from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its realisation.

¶69

iii. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount together with interest within a period of six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶70