Sri Shekar Vs Sri C v Mahesh

SRI. SHEKAR S/O CHOWDAIAH @ BELUGANAN CHOWDAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT CHIKKA BEGERU KUDLU GATE, ELECTRONIC CITY BANGALORE - AND ALSO AT UMMADAHALLI VILLAGE MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶15

(BY SRI. R. RANGANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.BABU M.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

…APPELLANT

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI. C.V. MAHESH, S/O VEERABADRAIAH, MAJOR IN AGE, NO.452/1, I^ST MAIN , 5^TH CROSS, PANCHASHEELANAGARA, MOODALAPALYA,

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013

¶20

2 -

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

BANGALORE -560 072.

¶23

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO 4/3 AND 3/2, 11^TH MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 061.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 20.11.2015, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH )

¶26

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.493/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, & XLI ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶27

IN MFA NO. 5666/2013

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

SRI MANJUNATHA @ MANJE GOWDA S/O LATE CHENNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDENT OF C/O TANGANNA, CHIKKBEGURU, KUDLU GATE, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE AND ALSO AT, VALAGERE, SOMANAHALLI, CHENNARAYANA PATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶30

...APPELLANT

¶31

(BY SRI. R RANGANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BABU M .,ADVOCATE)

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

AND:

¶36

SRI. C.V. MAHESH S/O VEERABADRAIAH, MAJOR IN AGE, NO.10/54, MUDALAPPA CROSS, DODDA MAVAHALLI, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560 072.

¶37

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.4/3 & 3/2, 11^TH MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 061.

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 04.07.2016, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶40

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.494/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, & XLI ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶41

IN MFA NO. 5667/2013

¶42

BETWEEN:

¶43

SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY @ KRISHNA @ MURTHY S/O LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT, 6^TH MAIN ROAD, RASTRAKAVI KUVEMPUNAGARA, N.S. PALYA, BTM 2^ND STAGE,

¶44

4 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

WARD NO 176, BANGALORE AND ALSO AT RESIDENT OF CHIKKABEGURU, VILLAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT.

¶48

...APPELLANT

¶49

(BY SRI. R. RANGANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BABU M., ADVOCATE)

¶50

AND:

¶51

SRI. C. V. MAHESH S/O VEERABADRAIAH MAJOR IN AGE, NO.10/54, MUDALAPPA CROSS, DODDAMAVAHALLI BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004.

¶52

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO 4/3, AND 3/2, 11^TH MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 061.

¶53

...RESPONDENTS

¶54

(BY SRI.ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 10.01.2015, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶55

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:4.3.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.492/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 19TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 41ST ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶56

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶59

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶60

MFA.Nos.5667/2013, 5668/2013 and 5666/2013 arises

¶61

out of the judgment and award in MVC.Nos.492/2012, 493/2012, 494/2012 dated 04.03.2013 passed by the XIX Additional Small causes Judge, MACT and XLI ACMM, Bengaluru (SCCH-17), Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal).

¶62

All the three claim petitions arises out of the common judgment. The Tribunal recorded common evidence and disposed of the petition by a common judgment and award. The claimants dissatisfied by the amount of compensation awarded preferred these appeals. The appeals are taken up together for disposal.

¶63

The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

¶64

It is the case of the claimants that, on 02.10.2011, at around 7.45 p.m, the claimants were going in

¶65

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

a Tata sumo bearing registration No.KA-02-D-5064. The driver of the said vehicle was driving vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and at Madavara Bridge, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru, it met with an accident resulting in injuries to the inmates of the said vehicle. All the three claimants sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. They took treatment by spending substantial amount and they have suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, claimants have prayed to award compensation.

¶68

Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle. In all the three petitions, respondent No.2 denied the contentions of the claim petition and contended breach of terms and conditions of insurance by the owner of the vehicle.

¶69

The Tribunal framed necessary issues basing on the rival contentions of the parties. Claimants examined eight witnesses as PW-1 to PW8 and marked Exs.P1 to P29. The respondents have not led any evidence. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence

¶70

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

on record claimed that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and in the said accident claimants sustained the injuries.

¶73

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel

¶74

for both the parties.

¶75

The fact of the accident and injuries sustained by

¶76

the claimants in the said accident are not in dispute. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the same. The only question that arises for consideration is:

¶77

i. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation.

¶78

I answer the above issue partly-in-affirmative for the following reasons:

¶79

IN MVC.No.492/2004

¶80

The claimant is examined as PW-1. In his

¶81

evidence, he has reiterated the contentions of the claim petition. The wound certificate of the claimant is produced at Ex.P7, which reveals that he sustained head injury,

¶82

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

browny contusion over the left eye. CT brain revealed soft tissue of left parietal, left fracture with linear fracture of left frontal lower. He took treatment as in-patient from 02.10.2011 to 15.10.2011. The inpatient records are at Exs.P22 to 25. He contended the he has been suffering from permanent disability due to the said injuries. However, he has not examined doctor who had treated him to prove the disability, moreover, looking at the said injury, it does not reveal that he was suffering from any functional disability. He has produced the medical bills at Ex.P9. They were partly considered by the Tribunal and remaining parts were rejected due to receipts of the said bills, were not produced.

¶85

11. Considering the said facts, the Tribunal has

¶86

awarded following amount of compensation:

¶87

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1.	Pain and sufferings	20,000
2.	Medicalexpenses	40,000
3.	Loss ofearnings	8,000
4.	Conveyance, attendant and nourishing food	10,000
5.	Discomfort, loss of amenities in life andfuturehappiness	10,000
	Total	Rs.88,000/-

¶88

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

Looking at the nature of the injuries, treatment taken and records produced by the claimant, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side, which requires enhancement. The claimant contended that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has taken monthly income as Rs.4,000/-. which is on the lower side following the chart prepared by Karnataka Legal Services Authorities, the notional income of the claimant is taken as Rs.6,000/- per month. No amount of compensation is awarded towards loss of amenities though he has sustained linear fracture of left frontal bone, which needs to be considered.

¶91

The respondents have not led rebuttal evidence to disbelieve the medical receipts. The claimant has taken treatment and has undergone laboratory tests. Considering the same, he must have spent the said amount towards medical expenses, which has to be considered.

¶92

Therefore, following amount of compensation is awarded.

¶93

10 -

¶94

NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount(in Rs.)
1.	Pain and suffering	40,000
2.	Medical expenses	78,200
3.	Loss of earning during laid up period(Rs.6,000x3)	18,000
4.	Attendant charges, conveyance and special diet	25,000
5.	Loss of amenities	50,000
	Total	Rs.2,11,200
	Awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.88,000
	Enhanced amount	Rs.1,23,200/-

¶97

IN MVC.No.493/2012 in MFA.No.5668/2013

¶98

In this case, the claimant sustained injury to right hip with fracture intertrochanteric of the right femur bone and displaced fracture of linier and fracture of acetabulum. He took treatment in private hospital, admitting himself from 02.10.2011 to 03.10.2011. He has produced x-ray, medical report from Exs.19 to 22. He examined PW-7 who was not a treated doctor. On the basis of the medical test, he assessed the disability of the claimant at 34.9% to the lower limb and 17% to the whole body. In this case also the claimant contended that he was earning Rs.6,000/- by working as a garbage cleaner. Due to the above said fracture, he has been suffering from functional disability. He has produced the receipts for purchase of the medicine at Ex.P13, which

¶99

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013

¶100

HC-KAR

¶101

amounted to Rs.4,029/-. Considering the said facts, the

¶102

Tribunal has awarded following amount of compensation:

¶103

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amountin Rs.
1.	Painand sufferings	40,000
2.	Medicalexpenses	4,000
3.	Loss of earnings	12,000
4.	Conveyance, attendant and nourishingfood	6,000
5.	Discomfort, loss of amenities in life and future happiness	20,000
	Total	Rs.82,000/-

¶104

Being dissatisfied by the award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred this appeal.

¶105

Looking at the materials placed on record, the said amount of compensation awarded is on the lower side. The income of the claimant taken is also on the lower side. Following the chart prepared by Karnataka Legal Services Authorities, notional income is taken as Rs.6,000/- p.m. Looking at the injuries and nature of the work, it is evident the claimant has suffered permanent disability. Looking at the materials placed on record and evidence of PW-7, his permanent disability is assessed at 10% to the whole body. The age of the claimant is 44 years. As per the case of

¶106

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013

¶107

HC-KAR

¶108

Sarla verma Vs. DTC¹ and National Insurance Company

¶109

Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi² , the multiplier applicable in this case is ‘14’. The amount of compensation awarded under other heads are on lower side, which requires enhancement.

¶110

Accordingly, following amount of compensation is

¶111

awarded:

¶112

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount (in Rs.)
1.	Pain and suffering	60,000
2.	Medical expenses	4,000
3.	Loss of income during laid up period.(Rs.6,000x3)	18,000
4.	Attendant charges, conveyance, special diet	25,000
5.	Loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability(Rs.6,000x12x14x10%)	1,00,800
6.	Loss of amenities and future unhappiness	25,000
	Total	Rs.2,32,800/-
	Amount awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.82,000/-
	Enhanced amount	Rs.1,50,800/-

¶113

MVC.No.494/2012 in MFA.No.5666/2013

¶114

In this case, the claimant sustained the following

¶115

fractures:

¶116

i. Fracture pelvis;

¶117

1 AIR 2009 SC 3104

¶118

2 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶119

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

ii. Fracture acetabulum, iii. Fracture superior public ram-right and

¶122

iv. Fracture inferior pubic rami-right.

¶123

According to the claimant, he was aged about 27

¶124

years. He was working as a tractor driver and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. The Tribunal has taken income as Rs.4,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability. The claimant has produced medical bill of Rs.96,103/- at Ex.P18. However, the Tribunal has not considered it and has awarded only Rs.60,000/-, on the ground that the remaining bills are not relevant and they were hand written. He further contended that amount of compensation awarded under other heads are also on the lower side. Hence, prayed to enhance the compensation.

¶125

The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is partly acceptable. It is true that he has not produced any records to prove his income. Following the chart prepared by Karnataka Legal Services Authorities, the notional income is taken as Rs.6,000/- per month.

¶126

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013

¶127

HC-KAR

¶128

Looking at the nature of injuries and evidence of

¶129

PW-8, the disability to the whole body is taken as 15%. There is no evidence to disbelieve the age of the claimant as 27 years, and the suitable multiplier applicable is ‘17’ as per the case of Sarla verma and Pranay Sethi ( referred supra ) It is true that some of the medical bills are computerised and some of them are hand written. Undisputedly, he had taken treatment in private hospital, Bengaluru as well as in Hemavathi Hosptial, Chamarajendra Hospital, Hassan and also in Premier Sanjeevini Hospital. He was admitted as inpatient for nearly 20 days in different hospitals. Considering the said facts and circumstances, the medical bills produced by the claimant is believable. Considering the said facts, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, which requires enhancement.

¶130

Accordingly the following amount of

¶131

compensation is awarded:

¶132

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount (in Rs.)
1.	Pain and suffering	1,00,000
2.	Medical expenses	96,000
3.	Loss of income during laid up	36,000

¶133

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013

¶134

HC-KAR

¶135

	period.(Rs.6,000x6)
4.	Attendant charges, conveyance, special diet	30,000
5.	Loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability(Rs.6,000x12x17x15%)	1,83,600
6.	Loss of amenities	50,000
7.	Future medical expenses	40,000
	Total	Rs.5,35,600/-
	Amount awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.2,11,000/-
	Enhanced amount	Rs.3,24,600/-

¶136

The claimants in each case are entitled to interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of claim petition till its realization.

¶137

Undisputedly, the respondents are liable to pay the compensation. The claimants are not entitled for interest for future medical expenses.

¶138

For the aforesaid discussions, I answer point no.1 partly in affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶139

ORDER

¶140

i. The appeals are allowed .

¶141

ii. The judgment and award dated 04.03.2013 passed by the XIX Additional Small

¶142

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013

¶143

HC-KAR

¶144

Causes Judge, MACT & XLI ACMM in MVC.Nos.492, 493 and 494/2012 is modified.

¶145

iii. The claimant in MVC.No.492/2012 is entitled to enhancement of Rs.1,23,200/-. The claimant in MVC.No.493/2012 is entitled to enhancement of Rs.1,50,800/-. The claimant in MVC.No.494/2012 is entitled to enhancement of Rs.3,24,600/- The enhanced amounts carries interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. (Future medical expenses does not carry interest).

¶146

iv. Remaining portion of the order is not disturbed.

¶147

Send back the trial Court records to the Tribunal along with the copy of the judgment.

¶148

Sd/-

¶149

(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶150

AG

¶151

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Sri Shekar v. Sri C v Mahesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shekar v. Sri C v Mahesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Regional Manager Vs Venkatamma

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Vishwanatha

The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Sri. M S Chandan Kumar

Sri B H Raju, S/O Hanumaiah Vs Sri Badrappa S/O Channaveerappa

The Divisional Manager Vs Gopala @ Gopala Krishna

Sri S B Umesh Vs Reliance General Insurance