Sri Mohammed Swaleha Vs Smt Gowramma

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.1.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1511/2008 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT-XI, TUMKUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:18498 MFA No. 7077 of 2012

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This is claimant's appeal against judgment and award dated 27.01.2012 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XI, Tumkur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) in MVC No.1511/2008.

¶25

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶26

It is the case of the claimant that on 11.08.2008 at about 10.00 p.m. he met with an accident

¶27

due to rash and negligent driving of a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-HA-8633, by its rider; as a result of which, he sustained fractures and other injuries. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18498 MFA No. 7077 of 2012

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Respondent No.2/insurer has denied the

¶31

contents of the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶32

From the rival contentions of the parties, the

¶33

Tribunal framed the necessary issues for its determination.

¶34

The claimant to prove his case examined 2 witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked 33 documents as Exs.P1 to P33. Respondents have not led any evidence.

¶35

After hearing both the parties and appreciating

¶36

the evidence available on record, the Tribunal by impugned judgment and award, awarded following amount of compensation.

¶37

Sl.No	Heads	Amount
1.	Pain and suffering	Rs.50,000/-.
2.	Loss of amenities and future unhappiness	Rs.25,000/-.
3.	Medical expenses	Rs.4,284/-
4.	Food and attendant charges	Rs.5,400/-
	Total	Rs.84,684/-

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:18498 MFA No. 7077 of 2012

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Being aggrieved by the same, claimant has filed

¶42

this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

¶43

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶44

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that Tribunal has not awarded the compensation under the head of loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability and the amount of compensation awarded under other heads is not just and reasonable. Therefore, he prayed to enhance the same.

¶45

Learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurer supports the impugned judgment and submits that there are no reasons to interfere in the said findings and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶46

The facts of the accident are that injury sustained by the claimant in the accident are not seriously disputed. Hence, no need to discuss the same.

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18498 MFA No. 7077 of 2012

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

The only question that arises for determination

¶50

is:

¶51

"Whether the claimant is entitled for the enhancement of compensation?”

¶52

The Trial Court records are not received. The

¶53

learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, vide letter dated 04.04.2025, reported that the entire records in MVC No.1511/2008 were destroyed. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties and on the basis of the Trial Court judgment, the appeal is disposed.

¶54

The Tribunal in the impugned judgment at Paragraph No.2 as well as Paragraph No.12, while considering issue No.2, has mentioned in detail about the injuries sustained by the claimant. There is no need to repeat it. Out of the said injuries, injury Nos.1 and 5 are fractures of both the bones in the left leg as well as the lower third of left radius. Therefore, injury to both the bones of left leg as well as a fracture of left radius certainly affects his efficiency at work. In the appeal

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:18498 MFA No. 7077 of 2012

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

memo, at Paragraph No.15, the appellant has extracted the gist of the evidence given by PW-2, wherein he has assessed permanent disability to the extent of 9% to the whole body, which appears to be reasonable.

¶59

Claimant in the petition contended that, he was earning sum of Rs.6,000/- p.m. from the mason work. Accident had taken place during the year 2008 and as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, notional income of victim of an accident of the year 2008 is Rs.4,500/- p.m., which could be applied to the facts of the present case. And income of the claimant is taken as Rs.4,500/- p.m. Age of the claimant is 55 years, as per the cause title of the Trial Court judgment. There is no other material available to reject the same. Hence, age of the claimant is taken as 55 years and suitable multiplier applicable, as per the case of Sarla

¶60

Verma And Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

¶61

And Another¹ is '11' between the age group of 51 to 55

¶62

1 AIR 2009 SCC 3104

¶63

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18498 MFA No. 7077 of 2012

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

years. On the basis of the said calculation, loss of future

¶66

earning capacity due to permanent disability is assessed.

¶67

As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on all the heads except medical expenses are on the lower side, which needs to be enhanced. The claimant suffered five fractures, received inpatient care from 12.08.2008 to 11.09.2008, and underwent surgery. Considering these facts, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced. Accordingly, the following amount of compensation is awarded.

¶68

Sl.No	Heads	Amount
1.	Pain and suffering	Rs.75,000/-.
2.	Medical expenses	Rs.4,284/-.
3.	Food, conveyance, Nourishment and attendant charges etc.,	Rs.20,000/-
4.	Loss of income during laid up period (4,500X3)	Rs.13,500/-
5.	Loss of future income due to permanent disability (4,500X11X12X9%)	Rs.53,460/-

¶69

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:18498 MFA No. 7077 of 2012

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

6.	Loss of amenities	Rs.40,000/-
	Total	Rs.2,06,244/-

¶72

The claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation of Rs.1,21,560/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till its realisation. Accordingly, I answer the above question partly in the affirmative and pass following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

i. The appeal is allowed.

¶75

ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 27.01.2012 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XI, Tumkur, in MVC.No.1511/2008 is modified;

¶76

(a) Claimant is entitled to enhancement of amount of compensation of Rs.1,21,560/with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the

¶77

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:18498 MFA No. 7077 of 2012

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till realization.

¶80

iii. Respondent No.2 – insurance company shall deposit the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award.

¶81

iv. An accident has taken place during the year 2008. The enhanced amount of compensation is meager. Therefore, the entire amount is ordered to be released in favour of claimant on due identification.

¶82

v. Send back TCR with copy of judgment to trial Court.

¶83

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶84

AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Sri Mohammed Swaleha v. Smt Gowramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mohammed Swaleha v. Smt Gowramma

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

Binnimiyi Biswas Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajeev Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ningaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a G Raghavendra Vs Sri M D Sharath

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Lakshmegowda

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited Vs K E Thippeswamy