Sri K N Prakash Vs Sri Gajendra Prasad H N

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.10.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO. 388/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved

¶26

by the judgment and award dated 03.10.2023 passed by the VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge and MACT, at Tumakuru (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.388/2022, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶27

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

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:41424 MFA No. 8133 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

With the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶32

The brief facts of the case are that, on 31.12.2021, at 8.00 a.m, when the petitioner was proceeding as a pillion rider on motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-06-HH-6911 near Tadakalur gate, Siraamarapura road, the rider of the motorcycle was riding it in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle. As a result, he dashed against a person who was standing beside the road, causing an accident in which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. He underwent surgery and took treatment as in-patient He has spent substantial amount towards medical expenses. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has been suffering from a permanent disability. With these reasons, prayed to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

¶33

The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41424 MFA No. 8133 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

motorcycle. Respondent No.1 - owner filed objections denying the contentions of the claimant and further contended that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No.2-insurer has not filed written statements.

¶37

From the rival contentions of the parties, the

¶38

Tribunal framed necessary issues.

¶39

The claimant to prove his case, examined 2

¶40

witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 15 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-15. Respondent No.2 has not lead any oral or documentary evidence.

¶41

The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment, awarded the following amount of

¶42

compensation:

¶43

Particulars	Amount in
	Rs.
Pain and suffering	80,000

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41424 MFA No. 8133 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Loss of amenities	20,000
Loss of income during treatment period	30,000
Attendant's and conveyance	15,000
charges etc.,
Medical expenses	60,715
Loss of future income	2,52,000
Future medical expenses	50,000
Total	5,07,715/-

¶47

Being aggrieved by the said award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶48

9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer.

¶49

10. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate; The Tribunal has not considered the income of the claimant properly and the disability assessed is also on the lower side; The compensation awarded under other heads are also on the lower side. Hence, prayed for enhancement of the compensation.

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:41424 MFA No. 8133 of 2023

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

11. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-insurer submitted that the Tribunal has properly considered the case of the claimant and has awarded a just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for any interference by this Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶54

12. Fact of the accident is not in dispute. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of driver of the motor cycle, which is not in dispute by either side. Hence, there is no need to reconsider the same.

¶55

13. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment assessed the age of the claimant as 43 years at the time of the accident, taken his income as Rs.16,000/- per month, applied the multiplier of `14', assessed the disability as 10% to the whole body and awarded the compensation.

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:41424 MFA No. 8133 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

14. On re-appreciating the evidence available on record, the amount of compensation under some of the heads are on the lower side, that requires enhancement.

¶60

15. Looking at the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, the claimant is entitled for enhancement of Rs.30,000/- in respect of loss of amenities. The Tribunal has considered loss of income during laid up period only to an extent of two months. The claimant sustained injury of left wrist and he was working as a coolie. Therefore, he may not be

¶61

able to do his regular work for a period of three months.

¶62

For the aforesaid discussions, the claimant is

¶63

entitled to following amount of compensation :

¶64

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Pain and suffering	80,000
Medical expenses	60,715
Attendant expenses, special diet and conveyance charges	25,000
Loss of income during laid up period	45,000
(Rs.15,000x3)
Loss of income due to permanent disability	2,60,400

¶65

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41424 MFA No. 8133 of 2023

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

(Rs.15,500 x 12 x 14 x 10%)
Loss of amenities	50,000
Future medical expenses	50,000
Total	5,71,115
Amount awarded by the Tribunal	5,07,715
Enhancement-	63,400
Rounded off-	64,000