Sri.Hanumantharaya Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd.

POLICY ISSUED AT: ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE, 414, VEER SAVARAK MARG, NEAR SIDDHI VINAYAKA TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI – 400 025. (POLICY NO.3005/25788052/2172-5/000. VALID FROM 23.12.2014 TO 22.12.2015).

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:26851 MFA No. 8364 of 2017

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SRI. THIMMARAJU, S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA, NO.61, KENADIAL SCHOOL ROAD, SIDDANAHOSAHALLI, MADAVARA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH – 562 102. BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. JAGADISH P S., ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10/07/2017, PASSED IN MVC NO.1583/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT XXXII ACMM, (SCCH-3), BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

The present appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1980¹ by the claimant, challenging the judgment and award dated 10.07.2017 passed in

¶26

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V. Act’

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:26851 MFA No. 8364 of 2017

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

M.V.C.No.1583/2016 by the VII Additional Judge, MACT & XXXII ACMM, Bengaluru (SCCH-3)² , seeking for enhancement of the quantum of compensation awarded.

¶31

The findings of the Tribunal on negligence and liability are not under challenge and have attained finality. Hence, the only aspect that is required to be considered in the present appeal is with regard to the adequacy of the quantum of compensation awarded.

¶32

Heard the submissions of the learned counsel, Shri.Raghu.R., appearing for the appellant/claimant and learned counsel, Shri.Jagadish.P.S., appearing for the Respondent No.1/ Insurer.

¶33

It is forthcoming that the claimant was aged 34 years as on the date of the accident, i.e., on 03.08.2015. Hence, the Tribunal has applied the appropriate multiplier of '16', which is just and proper.

¶34

It is averred that the claimant is a Mason and

¶35

earning `15,000/- per month. However, no documents

¶36

2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26851 MFA No. 8364 of 2017

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

have been produced to demonstrate his income. The Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the claimant as 7,000/- per month. Having regard to the date of the accident, it is just and proper that the notional income of the claimant be re-assessed as 9,000/- per month.

¶40

It is forthcoming from the Wound Certificate (Ex.P6), Discharge Summary (Ex.P9) and other medical documents that the claimant sustained fracture of left femur and fracture of metacarpal of the index, middle and ring finger of the right hand. The Tribunal has noticed that the Doctor (PW-3) has admitted in the cross-examination that there is no fracture metacarpal of the index, middle and ring finger of the right hand. The Doctor has deposed that the disability to the left leg is 42%. The Tribunal has assessed 1/3^rd of the same and recorded a finding that the whole body disability comes to 14%. However, without any justification, merely recording that considering the evidence of PWs-1 and 3, reduced the permanent disability to 8%. The said reduction is without any basis and liable

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:26851 MFA No. 8364 of 2017

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

to be interfered with. Accordingly, the disability of the claimant to the whole body is re-assessed as 14%. The claimant was treated as an inpatient for a total period of 21 days. Accordingly, the compensation is re-assessed as follows:

¶44

i) The Tribunal has awarded compensation of 35,000/- towards pain and suffering. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained, the same is re-assessed as 40,000/-;

¶45

ii) The Tribunal has assessed the laid-up period as three months. Accordingly, the loss of income during laid-up period is re-assessed as (9,000 X 3) 27,000/- as against `21,000/- awarded by the Tribunal;

¶46

iii) The Tribunal has awarded a sum of 801/towards medical bills as per the actuals, which is just and proper. However, the same is rounded off as 1,000/-;

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:26851 MFA No. 8364 of 2017

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

iv) The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of 15,000/- towards loss of amenities, conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained and the period of treatment, it is just and proper that the compensation towards food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges be re-assessed as 15,000/- as also the loss of amenities be reassessed as `20,000/-;

¶50

v) The compensation awarded towards future medical expenses in a sum of `15,000/- is not interfered with;

¶51

vi) The compensation towards loss of future earning capacity due to disability is re-assessed as (9,000 X 12 X16 X 14%) = 2,41,920/-.

¶52

Hence, the total compensation under various

¶53

heads is re-assessed as follows:

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:26851 MFA No. 8364 of 2017

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Sl. No.	Heads	Amount awarded by the Tribunal (`)	Amount awarded by this Court (`)
1	Pain and suffering	35,000.00	40,000.00
2	Loss of income during laid up period	21,000.00	27,000.00
3	Medical bills	801.00	1,000.00
4	Loss of future earning	1,07,520.00	2,41,920.00
5	Loss of amenities, food and nourishment and attendant charges	15,000.00	15,000.00 (food and nourishment) 20,000.00 (loss of amenities)
6	Future medication	15,000.00	15,000.00
	Total	1,94,321.00	3,59,920.00

¶57

Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled for

¶58

enhanced compensation of 1,65,599/- (3,59,920/- – 1,94,321/-) rounded off to 1,66,000/-.

¶59

The Tribunal has awarded interest at 8% per

¶60

annum. However, taking judicial notice of the interest awarded towards Fixed Deposits, it is just and proper that

¶61

8 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:26851 MFA No. 8364 of 2017

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

the interest be awarded as 7% per annum on the compensation as re-assessed by this Court.

¶65

In view of the aforementioned, the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i) The appeal is partly allowed;

¶68

ii) The judgment and award dated 10.07.2017 passed in M.V.C.No.1583/2016 on the file of VII Additional Judge & XXXII ACMM, Bengaluru (SCCH-3) is modified to the extent of holding that the claimant is entitled to a further compensation of `1,66,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Six Thousand only), which is required to be paid together with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment, in addition, to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal;

¶69