Smt. Sreelatha R Vs the Manager

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:12531 MFA No. 10427 of 2018

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10427 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SREELATHA R., W/O LATE BHAKTAVATSALAM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, NO.717, CHANDRODAYA, 4TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS , KALYANA CO-OP SOCIETY LAYOUT, NAGADEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE-56.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

Digitally signed by (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S., ADVOCATE) AASEEFA PARVEEN AND: Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE MANAGER, SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, REGIONAL OFFICE, DOOR NO.3, RUKMINI TOWERS , PLATFORM ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶12

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:12531 MFA No. 10427 of 2018

¶13

HC-KAR

¶14

M/S. STAR LOGISTICS,

¶15

R/BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, NO.10, 2ND MAIN ROAD, YADAVAGIRI,

¶16

MYSURU-57020.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. SHARANAPPA GOUDA MALI PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶19

SRI. MILASH ARROL NORONHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12/06/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.665/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ACMM., XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-25), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶23

3 -

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:12531 MFA No. 10427 of 2018

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is filed by the injured/claimant challenging judgment and award dated 12.06.2018 passed in MVC No.665/2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal').

¶28

Heard Sri.Raghavendra.S, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Sharanappa Gouda Mali Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

¶30

the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the injured at Rs.8,000/- per month. It is submitted that the injured was aged about 44 years, a beautician by avocation and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has also erred in assessing the disability of the injured at 15% which is contrary to the experts evidence on record. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:12531 MFA No. 10427 of 2018

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

compensation under the head of loss of income during laid up period and the award of compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities, attendant charges etc., is also on lower side. Hence, he seeks to enhance the same appropriately. It is contended that the award of compensation by the Tribunal under the head of future medical expenses of Rs.50,000/- is contrary to the oral evidence of PW.5 who has clearly deposed before the Tribunal that the appellant/injured needs another surgery for total hip replacement and the cost of the said surgery would be approximately Rs.1,50,000/-. Hence, he seeks to re-assess the compensation by allowing the appeal.

¶34

Per contra Sri.Sharanappa Gouda Mali Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1insurance company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the appellant/injured has not produced any proof of income and the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income at Rs.8,000/- per month. It is submitted that since PW.5 is

¶35

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:12531 MFA No. 10427 of 2018

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

not a treated doctor, his evidence cannot be relied in assessing the disability. It is further submitted that taking note of the treatment provided to the appellant/injured, the Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which does not call for any enhancement. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has awarded 8% interest which was uncalled for and it is required to be reduced to 6%. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶38

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel

¶39

for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondentinsurance company and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶40

It is not in dispute that in a road accident dated 21.08.2015, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and suffered disability. She filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation. The claimant examined herself as PW.1 and also examined PW.5-Dr.Nagaraj.B.N to substantiate the

¶41

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:12531 MFA No. 10427 of 2018

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

claim for compensation and got marked documentary evidence. The respondent did not adduce any evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence has awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,41,842/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization of the amount. It is to be noticed that the claimant has made an assertion in the claim petition as well as in the appeal that the claimant is a beautician by avocation. However, except oral testimony of the claimant, no evidence is placed on record to accept her avocation and income. In the absence of proof of income, this Court notionally assesses the income of the injured at Rs.9,000/- per month placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.

¶44

Insofar as the disability is concerned, the claimant examined PW.5-Doctor. He has deposed that the appellant sustained fracture and suffered disability to the extent of 49% to the lower limb and to the whole body at

¶45

7 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:12531 MFA No. 10427 of 2018

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

16.3%. The records indicate that the appellant sustained following fractures:

¶49

(a) Fracture dislocation right hip

¶50

(b) Left acetabulam posterior wall and anterior wall fracture

¶51

(c) Bilateral parasymphyid mandible fracture and

¶52

(d) Multiple faced laceration of right side of face and forehead

¶53

On perusal of oral testimony of PW.5 and other medical evidence on record, I am of the considered view

¶54

that the Tribunal without any justifiable reason has reduced the disability to 15%. PW.5 based on the treatment received by the appellant/injured and medical records has assessed disability at 16.3% to the whole body and has given his opinion. I am of the considered view that the said disability is required to be accepted by considering the disability of the appellant for the purpose

¶55

of determination of compensation at the rate of 16% to the whole body. It is not in dispute that the appellant has

¶56

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:12531 MFA No. 10427 of 2018

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

undergone surgery and was admitted in Sparsh Hospital, Bengaluru as inpatient from 21.08.2015 to 03.09.2015 and thereafter it was advised to take 10 months rest and follow up treatment. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal was not justified in disbelieving the evidence of PW.5 with regard to the future medical expenses, I am of the considered view that in the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the actual expenses that the appellant may incur for future surgery, the award of compensation by the Tribunal is just and proper. Hence the said contention is accordingly, rejected.

¶59

In my considered view, the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding any compensation under the head of loss of income during laid up period. Taking note of the fact that the injured was inpatient for a period of 10 days and she was advised to take complete bed rest for a period of 10 months and thereafter, for follow-up treatment, the interest of justice would be met if

¶60

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:12531 MFA No. 10427 of 2018

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

the compensation for loss of income during laid up period is awarded for a period of 4 months at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per month which comes to Rs.36,000/-.

¶63

Furthermore, I am also of the view that the compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of future amenities and happiness and attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment is also required to be enhanced. Considering the same, I am of the view that the compensation is required to be re-assessed and the same is accordingly re-assessed as under:

¶64

Sl. No	Description	Amount
1	Pain and suffering	Rs.70,000
2	Medical expenses	Rs.4,04,642
3	Loss of future income due to disability (Rs.9,000 x 12 x 13 x 16%)	Rs.2,24,640
4	Loss of future amenities and happiness	Rs.50,000
5	Attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment	Rs.40,000

¶65

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:12531 MFA No. 10427 of 2018

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

charges
6 Future medical expenses Rs.50,000
7 Loss of income during
laid up period
Rs.36,000
(Rs.9,000 x 4)
Total Rs.8,75,282

¶68

In the result, the Court proceeds to pass the

¶69

following:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

(i) Appeal is allowed in part .

¶72

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.8,75,282/- as against Rs.7,41,842/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶73

(iii) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

¶74

(iv) Respondent No.1-insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced

¶75

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:12531 MFA No. 10427 of 2018

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶78

(v) Insofar as the apportionment, deposit and release of compensation is concerned, the award of the Tribunal is unaltered.

¶79

(vi) On deposit, the Tribunal shall release the entire enhanced compensation to the appellant.

¶80

(vii) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶81

(viii) All pending IAs' are accordingly disposed of.

¶82

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶83

NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Smt. Sreelatha R v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sreelatha R v. the Manager

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

Sri Kemparaju Vs Sri M R Rajath

Sri. Sridhar Alias S. Sridhar Vs Smt. Kumudha

Sri Anjina Reddy Vs Sri K Mohan Raju

Sri Pranesh Bhat Vs Sri Kishor Kumar

C. Sreedharan Vs Smt. Papamma

Sri Sundarappa Vs Smt Lakshmi Sadanandan