Sri. Nagaraju Vs Sri. Gangadhar H

SRI. GANGADHAR H, S/O HANUMANTHAIAH, MAJOR, R/AT NO.76, 20^TH MAIN, PIPELINE ROAD, J C NAGAR, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM LAYOUT KURUBARAHALLI, BENGALURU SOUTH, BANGALORE-68.

¶17

RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., UNNATI ARCADE, 5/111 & 6/112, 1^ST FLOOR, 1^ST BLOCK, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, 1^ST MAIN RAOD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:30544 MFA No. 6548 of 2019

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

(BY SRI. H.S. LINGARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DTD: 05.08.2025)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.12.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1332/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH18), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 17.12.2018 passed in MVC No.1332/2018 on the file of the III Additional Judge and Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, for enhancing the compensation.

¶27

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30544 MFA No. 6548 of 2019

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with.

¶31

The matter came up for orders before this

¶32

court with the consent of both parties hence it is taken up for final disposal.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is the case of injury. The injured/claimant filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/with interest. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.1,53,200/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. It was also held that the claimant also contributed negligence to an extent of 30%. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally are liable to pay 70% of the compensation.

¶34

Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is

¶35

preferred by the appellant, in which it is contended that the appellant sustained fractures and underwent

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30544 MFA No. 6548 of 2019

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

major surgery and was treated as inpatient for more than 15 days. He was suffering more than 27% of physical disability. The amount granted under other heads are not sufficient and proper. The injured person could not attend any work at least for a period of 6 months. However, the tribunal granted loss of earnings only for 3 months. The disability is to be taken at 13% of the whole body disability, as per the evidence of PW2 and the income is to be taken as Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.7,500/-. Thus sought for enhancement of the compensation.

¶39

The injured was aged 60 years working as a security guard at Minerva Mill, Bangalore and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. But no evidence was adduced regarding his income. As such, the Tribunal has taken notional income as Rs.7,500/- per month.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellant contended

¶41

that as the accident occurred in the year 2017 and

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30544 MFA No. 6548 of 2019

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

as per the guidelines of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, his income is to be taken as Rs.11,000/- per month but he himself stated his income as Rs.10,000/- p.m., therefore this court finds it reasonable to take his income as Rs.10,000/-

¶45

per month.

¶46

To prove the case of the appellant he has examined PW2, Dr.B.Viswanath, an Orthopedic surgeon at Victoria hospital, Bengaluru, who stated that the appellant has sustained fracture of right medial malleoli and degloving right foot dorsum. Further, stated that the appellant was conservatively treated for medial malleoli right ankle and wound debridement right foot and split skin grafting right foot by plastic surgeon. Also, further PW2 stated that

¶47

the appellant suffered disability to an extent of 27.89% to the right lower limb and 13.94% to the whole body. The Tribunal has considered 1/3^rd of 27.89% and taken the disability as 9%. But the

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30544 MFA No. 6548 of 2019

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

learned counsel of the appellant requested the court to consider whole body disability of 13.94% or 13% at the best. As PW2 himself stated that fracture is united, this court finds no reason to interfere with the disability assessed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal rightly assessed the disability as 9%. The loss of income is calculated as Rs.10,000/- x 12 x 9 x 9% = Rs.97,200/-.

¶51

Further as per Ex.P7 discharge summary, he was hospitalised for 16 days from 16.08.2017 to 31.08.2017. Therefore, considering the same the tribunal granted Rs.30,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.16,000/for nourishment and transportation and attendant charges. This Court finds it reasonable to grant amount towards transportation, nourishment and attendant charges a total of Rs.30,000 /- instead of Rs.16,000. So also the medical expenses was granted as Rs.8,000/- as per the bills. It was also

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:30544 MFA No. 6548 of 2019

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

stated that he could not attend the duties for 3 months. Therefore, the loss of earnings to be taken as Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.22,500/-. Further under the head Pain and Suffering an amount of Rs.30,000/- was granted. As per the evidence, he

¶55

also underwent skin grafting. Therefore, this court finds it reasonable to enhance the amount of Rs.30,000/- pain and suffering to Rs.50,000/- .

¶56

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this

¶57

court are as below,

¶58

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Loss of future income	97,200
Pain and suffering	50,000
Loss of amenities	20,000
Transportation, food and	30,000
nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges
Towards medical bills	8,000
Loss of income during laid up period	30,000
Total	2,35,200

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:30544 MFA No. 6548 of 2019

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total enhanced compensation from Rs.1,53,200/- to Rs.2,35,200/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a.

¶62

Further, the trial court has taken the contributory negligence of petitioner to 30% as he consumed alcohol. Even as per Ex.P12 case sheet, he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that he was a pedestrian, as such the question of contributory negligence on his part does not arise. Admittedly appellant was under the influence of alcohol, therefore it cannot be said that there was no contributory negligence on his part. However, the contributory negligence can be reduced to 10% on the part of the appellant and 90% on the part of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay 90% of the total compensation

¶63

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:30544 MFA No. 6548 of 2019

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

with interest at the rate of 8% interest p.a., within

¶66

one month from the date of deposit.

¶67

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 17.12.2018 passed in MVC No.1332/2018 on the file of the III Additional Judge and Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, is hereby modified;

¶70

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,35,200 /- along with interest at 8% p.a., within 1 month from the date of deposit, instead of Rs.1,53,200/granted by the tribunal.

¶71

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:30544 MFA No. 6548 of 2019

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

iv. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay 90% of the total compensation with interest at the rate of 8% interest p.a., within one month from the date of this order.

¶74

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

¶75

SD/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶76

AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri. Nagaraju v. Sri. Gangadhar H

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Nagaraju v. Sri. Gangadhar H

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

Shesha Swaroop H S Vs Lomo Jovo Fernandis

Sri. Chandrashekar Vs Sri. Fayazuddin K S

N Shivakumar Vs Rajesh K N

Smt. Deepa S Vs the Manager

Smt. Kumari Bai Vs K.M. Vinod

Chandrappa Vs Iffco Tokio General Ins Co. Ltd.