Sri C Manjunatha Vs Sri E Rangesh

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.481/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MACT, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation arising out of in judgment and award dated 08.01.2020 in MVC.No.481/2014, passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolar (for short ‘Tribunal’).

¶26

The date of accident, involvement of vehicle, injuries suffered and the liability fastened on the insurance company are not disputed; the only challenge is regarding the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶27

Heard Smt.Sugunamma.R.Reddy, learned

¶28

counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Jwala Kumar

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:28329 MFA No. 5713 of 2021

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.

¶32

Smt.Sugunamma.R.Reddy, learned counsel

¶33

taking this Court through the judgment passed by the Tribunal particularly at paragraph No.96, would contend that the appellant has sustained multiple fracture injuries such as (i) 3A fracture of both bones at mid and distal 1/3^rd junction and the Doctor on examination has assessed the disability at 28%. The appellant is a mason who requires constant standing while discharging his work as a mason. In these circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have taken the disability to the whole body, not less than 50% to the particular limb. So also the Tribunal has failed to consider the income in a proper way. The year of date of accident was 2011, and that the income taken by the Tribunal is Rs.6,000/- per month instead of Rs.6,500/- as per chart of income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority (for short ‘KSLSA’). She further submits that the Tribunal has not at all considered the case of the

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:28329 MFA No. 5713 of 2021

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

appellant for awarding adequate compensation under all other heads except medical expenses and sought to allow the appeal.

¶37

Per contra, Sri.Jwala Kumar appearing for the respondent submitted that the injuries suffered by the claimant on both the legs and having considered the entire material on record had taken the income at the rate of Rs.6,000/- of the year 2011 and considering the disability at 9% to the whole body, awarded the compensation. In view of the same, he has submitted that the impugned judgment and award does not require interference by this Court and sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶39

parties, perused the entire appeal papers. The only question that would arise for consideration is:

¶40

“Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by

¶41

the Tribunal is just compensation, in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand?”

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:28329 MFA No. 5713 of 2021

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

My answer to the above point for consideration

¶45

is ‘partly in affirmatively’ for the following reasons:

¶46

Admittedly, the date of accident had occurred in the year 2011 as per the chart prepared by the KSLSA. The income for the year 2011 is fixed at Rs.6500/-. The Tribunal has taken the income of the appellant which is on the lowerside. Admittedly, appellant is a mason which work requires constant physical activities like standing while performing his work. In these circumstances, the disability is taken at 14% to the whole-body; which would meet the ends of justice. It is also noticed that compensation awarded by the Tribunal except medical expenses, under all other heads are on the lower side.

¶47

Towards ‘Food, Nourishment &

¶48

Conveyance’, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.14,000/-, which is on lower side and hence a sum of Rs.24,000/- is awarded under the said head.

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:28329 MFA No. 5713 of 2021

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

9. Towards ‘Medical Expenses’, the Tribunal has

¶53

awarded a sum of Rs.18,000/-, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶54

Towards ‘ Pain and Suffering ’ Rs.20,000/- is

¶55

awarded by the Tribunal which appears to be on lower side and hence a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the said head.

¶56

11. Towards ‘Future Medical Expenses’, the

¶57

Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶58

The Tribunal has not awarded compensation

¶59

under the head ‘Loss Of Amenities’ . Hence, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the said head.

¶60

The appellant was an inpatient for 16 days in view of the accidental injuries, he would have taken rest atleast for a period of 4 months. Therefore, taking the income at Rs.6,500/- per month and calculating the laid

¶61

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:28329 MFA No. 5713 of 2021

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

up period for 4 months, the claimant is entitled for a sum

¶64

of Rs.26,000/- (Rs.6,500 x 4 months) , under the head ‘Loss Of Income During Laid Up Period’.

¶65

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of

¶66

Rs.1,16,640/- towards ‘Loss of Future Income’ and a sum of Rs.1,96,560/- towards ‘Loss of Future Income’ takes income at Rs.6,500/- and disability at 15%.

¶67

In view of the same, the total compensation re-

¶68

determined by this Court under various heads is as follows:

¶69

1.	Food, nourishment & conveyance	:	Rs.	24,000/-
2.	Medical expenses	:	Rs.	18,000/-
3.	Pain & sufferings	:	Rs.	50,000/-
4.	Future medical expenses	:	Rs.	15,000/-
5.	Future loss of amenities	:	Rs.	30,000/-
6.	Loss of income during laid up period (6500 x 4 )	:	Rs.	26,000/-
7.	Loss of future income	:	Rs.	196,560/-
	6500 x 12 x 18 x 14/100
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	3,59,560 /-

¶70

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:28329 MFA No. 5713 of 2021

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

The total compensation re-determined by this

¶73

Court works out to Rs.3,59,560/- as against Rs.1,83,640/awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the appellant–claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.1,75,920/(Rs.3,59,560 – Rs.1,83,640) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of total compensation within Six Weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

¶74

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶75

ORDER

¶76

i) The appeal is Allowed-In-Part ;

¶77

ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.481/2014, dated 08.01.2020, is modified;

¶78

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:28329 MFA No. 5713 of 2021

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

iii) The appellant–claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.1,75,920/(Rs.3,59,560 – Rs.1,83,640) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

¶81

iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited by respondent No.2 - Insurance Company, before the concerned Tribunal, within Six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶82

v) On deposit entire compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant on proper identification.

¶83

vi) No order as to cost.

¶84

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶85

AMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Sri C Manjunatha v. Sri E Rangesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C Manjunatha v. Sri E Rangesh

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

Mr. Venkatesha. D. K. Vs Mr. Fayaz Pasha

The Branch Manager Vs Smt. Manjula

The Regional Manager Vs Basavaraju

Syed Nawaz Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Police

Sri. Kishore Kumar Vs Royal Sundaram General

Mr. Prakasha K P Vs Mr. Girish G