Baby Bai Vs Veerendra Patil

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.02.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO.385/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 19.02.2025 passed in MVC No.385/2022 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Davangere, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶27

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶28

The petitioner/injured claimant met with an

¶29

accident on 30.09.2021 and filed petition before the Tribunal

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:21382 MFA No. 1023 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed and mainly contended that the petitioner/injured was working as a coolie and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has assessed her income on the lower side and the amounts awarded under other heads are meagre. The petitioner examined the doctor as PW.2 and he assessed the disability at 40%. The Tribunal erred in taking the same as 10% instead of 13%. It is further contended that a higher rate of interest is to be granted. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶33

Though the petitioner stated that she was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, she has not filed any income proof. As she met with an accident in the year 2021, this Court finds it reasonable to take the notional income as Rs.15,000/- per month, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. She was aged 36 years and the relevant multiplier is '15'. The petitioner produced Ex.P.9-wound

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21382 MFA No. 1023 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

certificate and Ex.P.8-discharge summary. The doctor was examined as PW.2 and he issued the disability certificate marked as Ex.P.7. As per the medical evidence, the petitioner sustained both bone fracture of left leg and fracture of public remi and other injuries. The petitioner complains of difficulty in walking, inability to stand properly, difficulty in walking on slopes, climbing stairs, unable to sit cross-legged and difficulty in squatting. She also has pain in public region, the pain in moderate to severe and increased on exertion. On examination of the petitioner, the following difficulties are found:

¶37

"1. Restriction of hip joint movement like flexion, extension, adduction, abduction.

¶38

2. Restriction of leg movements like flexion, extension of left side."

¶39

The doctor assessed the disability at 40%. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to take 1/3^rd of 40% i.e., 13%, towards whole body disability. Accordingly, the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.3,51,000/- (15,000 × 12 × 15 × 13%). Considering the nature of injuries and other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to award Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:21382 MFA No. 1023 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

amenities and Rs.30,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. The petitioner might not have attended to any other work at least for a period of three months. Therefore, a sum of Rs.45,000/- (15,000 × 3) is awarded towards loss of income during the laid-up period.

¶43

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is

¶44

as below:

¶45

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1.	Towards pain and suffering	50,000/-
2.	Towards loss of amenities	25,000/-
3.	Towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges	30,000/-
4.	Towards loss of income during laid up period	45,000/-
5.	Towards loss of future earning capacity	3,51,000/-
	Total	5,01,000/-

¶46

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,01,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:21382 MFA No. 1023 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶52

ii. The judgment and award dated 19.02.2025 passed in MVC No.385/2022 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Davangere, is modified.

¶53

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,01,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.1,90,000/- granted by the Tribunal.

¶54

iv. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,11,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶55

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:21382 MFA No. 1023 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

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

¶58

vi. On 10.02.2026, the delay of 246 days is condoned by this Court on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest in case of enhancement. Hence, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the interest for the delayed period.

¶59

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶60

AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64

Baby Bai v. Veerendra Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby Bai v. Veerendra Patil

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

Kavya B S Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Sri a Madhan Vs Smt Sushma H D

Hrithik K J Vs Lokesha K a

Sri Joshua D Vs Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.

Shankara Naik Vs Govindappa Naik

Sri. Ankappa Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.