Nagaraja Vs Gopal Naik

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.07.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.542/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

As per memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellant, notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with at his own risk. Vakalath as filed by the learned counsel Sri.A.N. Krishna Swamy for respondent No.2 is taken on record.

¶28

By consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal, though it is posted for Admission and heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶29

The appellant, who was petitioner in

¶30

MVC.No.542/2020, being aggrieved by the judgment and award

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:27100 MFA No. 6780 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

passed by the learned Additional District Judge and Additional M.A.C.T. Udupi (sitting at Kundapura), has approached this Court in appeal.

¶35

Brief facts of the case:-

¶36

The fact that petitioner had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident dated 21.02.2020 at 10.30 a.m., involving the vehicle owned by respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent No. 2 is not in dispute. Immediately, after the accident the petitioner was admitted to the hospital and he underwent surgeries and other treatment. The petitioner claimed that he was working as a coolie and a daily wage labourer and he having suffered the injuries, there is a disability and as such he is entitled for adequate compensation from the owner and insurer of the vehicle.

¶37

On issuance of notice, the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and resisted the petition contending that the compensation claimed is on the higher side and the terms and conditions of the policy were violated by the driver of the offending vehicle etc.

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:27100 MFA No. 6780 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the

¶42

evidence was let in. The petitioner was examined as PW.2 and the doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW.3 and Exhibits.P.1 to P.18 were marked in evidence. A common judgment was passed by the Tribunal along with MVC No. 538/2020.

¶43

The Tribunal after hearing the arguments, awarded

¶44

a compensation of Rs.4,21,082/- under different heads as below:

¶45

1	Loss of future income arising out of permanent disability	Rs.2,67,624/-
2	Pain and sufferings	Rs.25,000/-
3	Loss of income during the period of treatment	Rs.38,232/-
4	Medical bill, conveyance, nutrition and attending charges	Rs.85,226/-
5	Future happiness and loss of amenities	Rs.5,000/-
	Total	Rs. 4,21,082/-

¶46

Being aggrieved by the quantum of the

¶47

compensation amount, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:27100 MFA No. 6780 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶51

petitioner/appellant would submit that he is challenging the compensation awarded under the head of pain and sufferings and future happiness and loss of amenities only. It is his contention that the Tribunal has not properly considered the nature of the injuries suffered by him and therefore, the compensation under these two heads are on the lower side. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant draws the attention of this Court to para-16 of the impugned judgment wherein after the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner is discussed, the Tribunal holds as below:

¶52

"To prove the said facts, the petitioner has examined the Dr Monappa naik A as PW.3 who deposed in his evidence that he is working as an Orthopedic at KMC hospital, Manipal on 21-02-2020with history of road traffic accident on the same day of the accident and as per would certificate and discharge summary, he was sustained following injuries:

¶53

The witness PW2 further deposed that the petitioner was treated by conservative management for the fractures and discharged on 26-02-2020. PW2 further deposed that the petitioner was readmitted on 17-042020 for mobilization exercises and discharged on 2004-2020 and the petitioner was seen by him in OPD on 11-05-2020, 05-02-2021, 09-03-2021. PW2 further deposed that on 09-03-2021, he examined the petitioner and found following infirmities:

¶54

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:27100 MFA No. 6780 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

''he has grade IV power in his right hip adductors and flexors his X-ray examination revealed nonunion of public ramigracture"

¶57

and found that because of the above, he is unable to raise from sitting position without upper limb support and the petitioner had permanent disability of 28% in his right lower limb locomotor function. The said witness PW2 was cross-examined at length by the respondent No.2 counsel regarding providing treatment and issuing of disability certificate. "

¶58

It is pertinent to note that, the above injury inflicted to a person aged about '42' years definitely caused impediments in his daily and routine work. Petitioner being a daily wage labourer has to suffer the said disability for the rest of the life. Fracture of the pelvis is one of the injury, which would cause discomfort for the entire life.

¶59

Under these circumstances, this Court finds that the compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering needs to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/- and the compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life has to be enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. In the result, there shall be a total enhancement of Rs.60,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal succeeds in part and as such the following:

¶60

7 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:27100 MFA No. 6780 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

O R D E R

¶64

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part.

¶65

ii. The appellant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.60,000/- in addition to compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit before the Tribunal. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly.

¶66

iii. Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of the judgment.

¶67

iv. The rest of the conditions imposed by the Tribunal remains unaltered.

¶68

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶69

AMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69

Nagaraja v. Gopal Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraja v. Gopal Naik

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 Dhanalasmi @ Geetha Vs the Divisional Controller

M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri C Vinayaprasad

Sri. M.S. Chandru Vs Sri Venkataswamy

The Legal Manager Vs Rathnamma

Smt Sheela Vs Smt Mamatha

Sri Niranjanamurthy Vs Sri Gurumallamma