Shivakumar S K Vs Sridhara G

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 680/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-8, SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 23^rd August 2019, passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-8, Shivamogga, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.680/2017, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶29

Though this appeal is slated for hearing on Interlocutory Application, with the consent, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶30

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

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:45164 MFA No. 8547 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The brief facts of the case are that, on 07.07.2017 at about 05.30 p.m. the claimant met with an accident while travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-14-EM2604 at D.V.S Circle, due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No.KA-04-MC-3339. As a result, the claimant sustained fracture of left foot and tenderness and swelling on the dorsum of the left hand. He was treated as inpatient from 07.07.2017 to 10.07.2017. He has spent huge amount towards medical expenses. He was aged about 38 years at the time of accident. Due to injury sustained in the incident, he has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-.

¶35

Respondent No.1 was the owner and respondent No.2 was the insurer of the offending vehicle. Both the respondents appeared before the tribunal and filed their respective written statements. Both respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 denied petition averments. Respondent No.2 denied its liability to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:45164 MFA No. 8547 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

From the rival contentions of the parties, the

¶40

Tribunal framed necessary issues.

¶41

The claimant to prove his case examined one witness as PW-1 and marked 41 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-41. Respondents have not examined any witness but marked documents as Exs.R-1 to R-3.

¶42

The Tribunal after hearing both parties and

¶43

appreciating the materials available on record, awarded the following amount of compensation:

¶44

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Towards pain and sufferings	40,000/-
Towards medical expenses	42,733/-
Towards loss of income during laid-up period	18,000/-
Towards attendant charges, food and nourishment	10,000/-
Total	1,10,733/-

¶45

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently

¶46

contends that the claimant sustained four injuries; out of them, two were fractures. He took treatment as an inpatient for about

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45164 MFA No. 8547 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

5 days. Thereafter, he took follow-up treatment. He was aged about 38 years and running a cloth business. Due to injuries sustained in the accident, he had suffered permanent disability that is affecting his earning capacity. He did not examine the doctor who treated him, to assess the permanent disability. However, looking at the facts of the case, the Tribunal ought to have awarded just amount of compensation on all the heads. No amount of compensation is awarded towards loss of amenities. With these reasons, he prayed to enhance the compensation.

¶50

The respondents disputed the said contention and contended that whatever the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and sufficient and there is no need to interfere in the said findings.

¶51

The claimant sustained two fracture injuries and two other minor injuries and was taken treatment as an inpatient. Looking at the nature of work stated in the petition, the so-called disability would affect his earning capacity. However, he did not examine the medical officer or the doctor who had treated him and assessed his disability. The Tribunal

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:45164 MFA No. 8547 of 2022

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

did not award any amount under the said head. In such an event, the Tribunal ought to have awarded more amount towards loss of amenities. The amount awarded by the Tribunal appears to be on the lower side. Considering the facts and circumstances and materials placed on record, the claimant is entitled to enhancement of global compensation of Rs.50,000/- on all the heads.

¶56

Undisputedly, respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., owner and insurer of the offending vehicle liable to pay the same.

¶57

The claimant is entitled to interest on the said amount at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till its realisation, excluding the delayed period of 402 days in filing the appeal.

¶58

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

i) The Appeal is allowed in part .

¶61

ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 23^rd August 2019, passed in MVC.No.680/2017, by the I I Additional Senior Civil

¶62

7 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:45164 MFA No. 8547 of 2022

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Judge and Additional MACT-8, Shivamogga, stands modified;

¶66

iii) The claimant is entitled to global enhancement of Rs.50,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, excluding the delayed period of 402 days in filing the appeal.

¶67

iv) The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of four weeks from the date of award.

¶68

v) The enhanced amount of compensation is marginal. Therefore, entire amount is ordered to be released in favour of claimant on due identification.

¶69

vii) Draw award accordingly.

¶70

Registry is directed to send copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal.

¶71

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶72

AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Shivakumar S K v. Sridhara G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivakumar S K v. Sridhara G

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

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. K. Latha

Shivanna @ Shivappa Vs Syed Babu S v

Sri Surendra B Vs Sri Krishna Kumar S

Mr. Mohammed Andan Noorulla Vs Mr. H.N. Siddegowda

Raghavendra Vs Shoukath

Smt Manjula Vs Sri Yallappa B K