Sri Mahanthesha @ Malathesh Vs Sri Kariyappa T S

SRI KARIYAPPA T S, S/O THINDI KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OWNER CUM DRIVER OF ASHOKA/ DOST LS BS-4 NO.16/D4161, R/O CHITTAYYANAHATTI VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 527.

¶15

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., NEAR VIDYARTHI BHAVANA, DAVANAGERE CITY-577 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (V/O DTD:05.02.2025, NOTICE TO R1 D/W, SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.09.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.310/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:32986 MFA No. 5654 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 21.09.2023 passed in MVC No.310/2021 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere, for enhancing the compensation.

¶25

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.

¶26

This is a case of injury. Injured claimant filed case before the tribunal for claiming compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18%. The tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32986 MFA No. 5654 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

evidence granted Rs.3,52,300/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

¶30

Aggrieved by the said order this appeal is preferred in which it is mainly contended that an amount of Rs.10,000/- meager compensation was granted for pain and suffering, though he was admitted in the hospital for 8 days as inpatient and sustained 3 fractures. The amount granted for medical expenses and also for diet, food and nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges is less. As per the disability under Ex.P10 he sustained 40% disability. Also, had restricted movement of shoulder right to an extent of 15% and 25% of mal occlusion, unable to approximate upper and lower jaw teeth. But the disability was wrongly assessed as 8%. The loss of amenities was also granted on lower side. Loss of income for laid up period is only Rs.45,000/- for 3 months. Therefore, requested for enhancement and the interest ought to have

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:32986 MFA No. 5654 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

enhanced to 12%. Thus requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶34

As per Ex.P10, appellant suffered fracture of temporal of right xygomatic bone, communited facture of right zygomatic arch, fracture of right clavicle and surgical emphyseman of frontal, temporal and peri-orbital region. The said injuries are mentioned in wounds certificate and also discharge summaries and OPD records. The petitioner examined PW2 doctor. He assessed the disability as 40% physical impairment and functional loss. The tribunal considered the said disability on higher side and taken the disability as 24% as whole body disability and assessed it as 8%, 1/3^rd of the same. The petitioner was an agriculturist, aged 40 years. He sustained 3 fractures. He was also admitted as inpatient for 18 days. Considering the nature of the injuries and the disability assessed by PW2, this court finds that it is just and reasonable to enhance the disability from 8% to 13%.

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:32986 MFA No. 5654 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

His income was taken as Rs.15,000/- per month, as he met with an accident in the year 2021. As per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, multiplier is to be taken as 15 and disability as 13 %. Hence, loss of future earning capacity is

¶38

Rs.15,000 x 12 x 15 x 13 % = Rs.3,51,000/- .

¶39

Further, as he sustained 3 fractures, this court

¶40

finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.25,000/- for loss of amenities. Medical expenses of Rs.61,300/- was granted by the tribunal and this court finds no reason to interfere with the said order. So also, an amount of Rs.10,000/- granted for diet, food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges is to be enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. The loss of income for laid up period was granted for 3 months and it needs no interference.

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:32986 MFA No. 5654 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Thus in all, components awarded by this court

¶44

are as below,

¶45

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Loss of future earning	3,51,000
Pain and suffering	25,000
Loss of amenities	25,000
Medical expenses	61,300
Diet, food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges	30,000
Loss of income for laid up	45,000
Total	5,37,300

¶46

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total

¶47

enhanced compensation of Rs.5,37,300/- along with

¶48

interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶49

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:32986 MFA No. 5654 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

ii. The judgment and award dated 21.09.2023 passed in MVC No.310/2021 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere, is modified;

¶55

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of

¶56

Rs. 5,37,300 /- along with interest at 6% p.a asfrom the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.3,52,300/granted by the tribunal.

¶57

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

¶58

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

¶59

SD/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶60

AKV

¶61

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 59

Sri Mahanthesha @ Malathesh v. Sri Kariyappa T S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mahanthesha @ Malathesh v. Sri Kariyappa T 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

Smt. Radha Vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mr. Krishnamurthy

The Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mangali Bai

Vinay K N Vs Teja Kumar

Sri Prathviraj Shetty Vs Mrs Sally Jose Katticaran

Rajaiah Vs Shankar