Sri. R. Devaraju Vs the Manager

THE MANAGER, UNIVERSAL SAMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., NO.7/3, 2^ND FLOOR, ABOVE BARCLAY'S FINANCE, OPPOSITE 100 FEET ROAD, OLD MADRAS ROAD, INDRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 038.

¶14

M/S. KARTHIK ROOFING'S, NO.76, ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BASAVESHWARA INDUSTRIAL ENTRANCE, PEENYA 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE(RC OWNER) 560 058.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W, V/O/D 03.03.2022)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1630 MFA No. 6809 of 2016

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 8.7.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2462/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 21ST ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 19TH ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Heard Sri. Yogesha G.K, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.Ravi S Samprathi, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶23

Challenge in this appeal is the order that is rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in M.V.C. No.2462/2015 dated 08.07.2016. This is a claimant's appeal.

¶24

On the ground that he sustained injuries in a road

¶25

traffic accident and became permanently disabled, the petitioner filed a petition claiming compensation of

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1630 MFA No. 6809 of 2016

¶27

Rs.5,00,000/- in total. The tribunal which dealt with the matter, subjecting the evidence of PW's Nos.1 and 2 and Ex's.P-1 to P-15 to scrutiny, held that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,15,980/- as compensation.

¶28

Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident. Through the evidence of PW-2, he not only established the nature of injuries sustained, but also the disability which is permanent in nature. However, the tribunal awarded a meager sum as compensation under all heads. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the petitioner was working as incharge of production in HHU Solar Private Limited and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by the date of accident. However, the tribunal took the notional income as Rs.8,000/- per month which is unfair. Learned counsel also states that the accident occurred in the year 2015 and for the relevant period even the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking notional income as Rs.9,000/-

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:1630 MFA No. 6809 of 2016

¶31

per month and atleast the said figure should have been considered by the tribunal. Learned counsel ultimately seeks for enhancement of compensation.

¶32

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 on the other

¶33

hand states that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is justifiable. However, learned counsel submits that there may be a marginal enhancement by taking the notional income as Rs.9,000/- per month.

¶34

The tribunal through the impugned order awarded

¶35

a sum of Rs.3,15,980/- as compensation divided under following heads:-

¶36

Sl. No	Description		Amount
1	Pain and suffering		25,000-00
2	Medical expenses		68,820-00
3	Loss of future income		2,12,160-00
4	Food, conveyance nourishment	&	10,000-00
	Total		3,15,980-00

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:1630 MFA No. 6809 of 2016

¶39

By all the evidence produced, the appellant succeeded in establishing that he sustained fracture neck of 4^th metacarpal bone, grade II compound communited right calcaneum fracture and heel pad avulsion. PW-2 assessed the disability in respect of whole body as 13%.

¶40

The submission made to take the notional income as Rs.9,000/- per month is justifiable. Therefore, taking the income as Rs.9,000/- per month and without distributing other parameters that is application of multiplier '17' and the disability in respect of whole body as 13%, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to under the head loss of future earnings on account of permanent physical disability to the whole body will be Rs.2,38,680/- (9,000/- x 17 x 12 x 13%).

¶41

The tribunal failed to award any sum as compensation for the loss of income during laid up period. Having considered the nature of injuries sustained, this Court is of the view that the appellant would have taken bed rest atleast for a period of three months. Therefore,

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1630 MFA No. 6809 of 2016

¶43

the compensation which the appellant is entitled to under

¶44

the head loss of income during laid up period is Rs.27,000 /-(Rs.9000 x 3). Also the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities in life. That apart, this Court considers desirable to enhance the compensation granted under the heads pain and suffering

¶45

and towards the amount which the appellant would have incurred for his food, extra nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. Therefore, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to under each head is as under:-

¶46

Sl. No	Description	Amount
1	Compensation for pain and suffering	35,000-00
2	Medical expenses	68,820-00
3	Loss of future earnings	2,38,680-00
4	Towards food, extra nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	15,000-00
5	Loss of income during laid up period	27,000-00
6	Loss of amenities in life	10,000-00
	Total	3,94,500-00

¶47

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1630 MFA No. 6809 of 2016

¶48

As earlier stated the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,15,980/only as compensation. However, the justifiable sum which the appellant is entitled to is Rs.3,94,500/-.

¶49

Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following:-

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶52

ii. The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru through orders in M.V.C. No.2462/2015 dated 08.07.2016 is enhanced from Rs.3,15,980/- to Rs.3,94,500/-.

¶53

iii. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶54

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1630 MFA No. 6809 of 2016

¶55

iv. Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order

¶56

v. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

¶57

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶58

VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Sri. R. Devaraju v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. R. Devaraju v. the Manager

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

Hema Vs Shrinath G T

Smt T Shrenika Shashvath Vs Sri Karthik D

Mrs. Apoorvi S Padaval Vs Mr.B.C. Shankar Jadhav

Smt. R. Kalpana Singh Vs Sri Abhilash Singh M

The Divisional Manager Vs Sri Mohammed Irfan

Sri Deepu @ Somadatta K Vs Smt Bhoomika (Shruthi)