Vinay K N Vs Teja Kumar

TEJA KUMAR, S/O KUMARASWAMY, R/A KODIHALLI VILLAGE (BASAVANAHALLI), KOTENAYAKANAHALLI POST, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. (RC OWNER OF MOTORCYCLE BEARING REG NO: KA-44-R-6203)

¶16

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., T P HUB, II FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, M G ROAD, BANGALORE 01 (I.P NO.6710013150100026306 VALID FROM 21.10.2015 TO 20.10.2016)

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2, V/O DTD:06.04.2022, NOTICE TO R1 D/W)

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:32987 MFA No. 7931 of 2017

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.262/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AND MEMBER MACT, BENGALURU(SCCH15), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 01.07.2017 passed in MVC No.262/2016 on the file of the XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, and Member MACT, Bengaluru for enhancing the compensation.

¶25

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2Insurance Company. Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32987 MFA No. 7931 of 2017

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

The brief facts of the case is that injured claimant

¶29

met with an accident on 18.12.2015 and filed claim application claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted Rs.1,52,500/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.

¶30

Aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred an appeal and mainly contended that the appellant sustained 3 fractures, also underwent major surgery and was inpatient for more than 7 days and the amount granted for pain and suffering and loss of amenities are on lower side. Appellant is still suffering from restricted movement of mouth, cannot chew hard food and there is 30% of oral and maxillofacial disability. The appellant incurred Rs.2,21,088/- towards medical expenses. As there was reimbursement of Rs.1,91,993/- the said amount was not granted. The appellant was on leave for 75 days and thus he is entitled for loss of earnings for the

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:32987 MFA No. 7931 of 2017

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

said period. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶34

The petitioner was Application Supporter Engineer (Team leader) and was getting salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. Ex.P8 is offer letter and Ex.P9 is his salary certificate. He met with an accident on 18.12.2015 and sustained 2 simple injuries and 3 fractures, which are grevious in nature, as per wound certificate Ex.P4 and Ex.P11 is the discharge summary. Appellant was admitted on 19.12.2015 discharged on 25.12.2015. He was inpatient for 7 days. He filed 3 discharge summaries under Ex.P11. He also filed prescriptions under Ex.P15 and medical bills under Ex.P13, case sheet under Ex.P17, OPD is Ex.P18 and X-ray at Ex.P19. To prove the case, appellant examined PW2 /Medical Record Officer.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that he was on leave for 75 days i.e. for 2½ months. As he lost his medical leave, he is entitled for loss of earnings for a period of 2½, at the rate of

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:32987 MFA No. 7931 of 2017

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Rs.26,217/- per month. Admittedly, he availed leave benefit and when an employee avails leave benefit, he is entitled to get the salary for the leave period. As such, his claim regarding leave period was rightly not considered by the tribunal and it needs no interference.

¶39

Considering the difficulties expressed by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was granted for permanent physical impairment and it needs no interference. As he sustained three fractures, this Court finds it reasonable to enhance pain and suffering to Rs.60,000/- and loss of amenities to Rs.40,000/- . Regarding medical expenses as he has already been reimbursed with Rs.1,91,000/-. Further, Rs.29,000/- was granted and it needs no interference. Regarding diet and conveyance, including attendant charges during hospitalization, extra nourishment and transport, this Court finds it is just and reasonable to grant Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.13,500/-.

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:32987 MFA No. 7931 of 2017

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Thus in all, components awarded by this court

¶43

are as below,

¶44

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Permanent Physical	50,000
impairment
Pain and suffering	60,000
Loss of amenities	40,000
Medical expenditure	29,000
Diet and conveyance	30,000
Total	2,09,000

¶45

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total

¶46

enhanced compensation of Rs.2,09,000/- along with

¶47

interest at the rate of 8% p.a.

¶48

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶51

ii. The judgment and award dated 01.07.2017 passed in MVC No.262/2016 on

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:32987 MFA No. 7931 of 2017

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

the file of the XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, and Member MACT, Bengaluru, is modified;

¶56

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,09,000 /- along with interest at 8% p.a asfrom the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.1,52,500/granted by the tribunal.

¶57

iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the amount within one month from the date of this order;

¶58

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

¶59

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶60

AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Vinay K N v. Teja Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay K N v. Teja Kumar

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. Radha Vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mr. Krishnamurthy

The Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mangali Bai

Sri Mahanthesha @ Malathesh Vs Sri Kariyappa T S

Sri Prathviraj Shetty Vs Mrs Sally Jose Katticaran

Rajaiah Vs Shankar