Sri. Chandrashekar Vs Sri. Fayazuddin K S

SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, DRIVER, R/O HIREKANDANVADI VILLAGE HOLALKEERE TALUK, NOW R/A C/O CHANDRAPPA’S HOSUE, OPPOSTIE MECCA MAZEED, NEHUR NAGAR CROSS ROAD, HOLALKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577 501. …APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. K T PREMALATHA., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. FAYAZUDDIN K S, S/O SIRAJUDDIN M K, Digitally SMST TRANSPORT, signed by BADA MAKAN, HORPET, MADHURI S CHITRADURGA TOWN, Location: OWNER OF THE LORRY High Court BEARING REGN NO.KA-16-A7742. of Karnataka

¶13

M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NO.1 AND 2, 1^ST FLOOR, MAGANUR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, B D ROAD, CHITRADURGA TOWN-577 501.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30065 MFA No. 5601 of 2018

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

(BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R2, V/O DTD:03.12.2018 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 17.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.819/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 17.03.2018 passed in MVC No.819/2015, by Prl.Senior Civil Judge and CJM Chitradurga, for enhancing the compensation.

¶22

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2Insurance Company. Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with.

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30065 MFA No. 5601 of 2018

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

The petitioner/injured claimant had filed petition

¶26

before the tribunal for compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. The trial Court considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.2,20,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was the driver aged 27 years and earning Rs.20,000 to 25,000 per month and due to the accidental injuries suffered permanent disability and lost his future earning capacity.

¶28

To prove his case, the appellant before the tribunal examined PW1 and PW2 and marked Exs.P1 to P8. As per Ex.P7-Disability certificate, appellant sustained injury of open comminuted fracture right tibia distal third with fracture upper third right fibula. He was admitted on 09.08.2014 and discharged on 16.08.2014. On 21.02.2017, there was tenderness over the lower third of

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30065 MFA No. 5601 of 2018

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

the right tibia. As per Ex.P7, wound certificate, he has difficulty in climbing stairs, squatting on floor, sitting crossed legged and kneeling. As per the x-ray dated 21.02.2017, there was malunited fracture of both bones lower third right tibia with nail and screws in situ and malunited fracture upper third fibula. As such, the disability was assessed as 27%, to his right lower limb. However, the trial court erred in taking 9% permanent disability. It is further stated, that income was also wrongly taken as Rs.7,000/- per month. The amount of Rs.35,000/- granted for pain and suffering is less, as he took treatment for more than 6 months. The other expenses granted are also not proper. Therefore, requested for enhancement.

¶32

As per the evidence of PW2 and disability certificate, he sustained 27% of disability to the right lower limb and 1/3^rd of 27% was taken as sole body disability and it was rightly taken as 9%. This court finds no reason to interfere with the said disability. The injured

¶33

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30065 MFA No. 5601 of 2018

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

was 27 years old, lorry driver. The accident occurred in the year 2014. As per the guidelines of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the income of appellant to be taken as Rs.8,500/- per month instead of Rs.7,000/-.

¶36

Therefore, Rs.8,500 x 12 x 17 x 9 % = Rs.1,56,060/- is granted towards loss of income . The amount granted towards pain and suffering is Rs.35,000/- and loss of amenities is Rs.25,000/- and future medical expenses is Rs.15,000/- (by mistake it was typed as Loss of academic year education) and they need no interference. Loss of income is enhanced from Rs.14,000/to Rs.25,300/-. Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges, is increased from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.30,000/-.

¶37

Thus in all, components awarded by this court are as below,

¶38

6 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:30065 MFA No. 5601 of 2018

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Particulars Amount
in Rs.
Loss of future income 1,56,060.00
Pain and suffering 35,000.00
Loss of amenities 30,000.00
Food and nourishment 30,000.00
Loss of income during laid 25,300.00
down period
Future medical expenses 15,000.00
Total 2,86,360.00

¶42

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total

¶43

enhanced compensation of Rs.2,86,360/- along with

¶44

interest at the rate of 9% p.a.

¶45

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶48

ii. The judgment and award dated 17.03.2018 passed in MVC No.819/2015,

¶49

7 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:30065 MFA No. 5601 of 2018

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

by Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM Chitradurga, is modified;

¶53

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,86,360 /- along with interest at 9% p.a asfrom the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.2,20,500/granted by the tribunal.

¶54

iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the amount within one month from the date of this order on such deposit and

¶55

v. Petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same.

¶56

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶57

AKV

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Sri. Chandrashekar v. Sri. Fayazuddin K S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Chandrashekar v. Sri. Fayazuddin K S

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 R K Nagaraju @ Nagaraj Vs G Bhadraradhya

The Manager Vs Mahadevu M. C.

Sri Unikrishnan v S Vs the Icici Lombard Motor

Shesha Swaroop H S Vs Lomo Jovo Fernandis

N Shivakumar Vs Rajesh K N

Mr Noushad Ibrahim Vs Jayaram Bhandary