Harsha N Vs Bajaj Allianz Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd

THE HEAD MASTER PADMASHREE SHEKHAR M/S SIR CHAITHANYA T SCHOOL, DESAI SHAMANNA GARDEN, Location: High DEVASANDRA MAIN RAOD, Court of BEHIND KAVERY BAKERY, Karnataka K.R.PRUAM, BANGALORE-560 036.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1, V/O DTD:08.11.2021 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33607 MFA No. 142 of 2017

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED31.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2854/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & XX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-24), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 03.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶20

CAV JUDGMENT

¶21

Common award is passed in M.V.C. Nos.2854 of 2015 and 2855 of 2015 dated 31.08.2016 by the Court of XXII Additional Small Causes Judge and XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and MACT, Bengaluru.

¶22

This appeal is filed by the claimant against the award of the tribunal passed in MVC No.2854 of 2015. The injured claimant met with an accident on 14.03.2015 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted Rs.5,14,520/- with interest at the rate at 8% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶23

3 -

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:33607 MFA No. 142 of 2017

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-claimant filed this appeal mainly contending that he sustained 6 injuries, some of which are grievous in nature. He incurred more than Rs.4 lakhs towards medical expenses and the Tribunal granted meager amounts under all the other heads. It is contended by the claimant that he was aged 19 years at the time of the accident and he was working as Medical Wholesale Dealer and earning Rs.10,000 /- per month. The Tribunal taken his income as Rs.6,000/- per month and also considered the disability to the whole body as 12%, which is on lower side. He underwent surgery for removal of implants and spent Rs.50,000/-. No amount is granted under the head loss of marriage prospects though he sustained 30% of whole body disability and multiple disfigurements. Thus, he requested for enhancement of compensation.

¶27

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides.

¶28

It is stated that petitioner-claimant was aged 19 years and was studying B.Com. at the time of the accident. He met with an accident in the year 2015. Therefore, notional income

¶29

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33607 MFA No. 142 of 2017

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

is to be taken as Rs.9,000/- per month as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and the multiplier is to be taken as 18. The petitioner filed Exhibit P1wound certificate and Exhibit P2-discharge certificate. He also examined a doctor as P.W.3. As per wound certificate, the

¶32

petitioner sustained the following injuries:

¶33

1. Fracture of both bones of left leg.

¶34

2. Fracture of both bones of right forearm.

¶35

3. Fracture of both bones of left forearm.

¶36

4. Abrasion over right eyebrow.

¶37

5. Cut laceration over the left eyebrow.

¶38

Out of the said injuries, injuries No.1 to 3 are grievous and injuries No.4 and 5 are simple in nature. He was admitted in the hospital from 14.03.2015 to 21.03.2015 for a period of 7 days. He underwent multiple surgeries to his left leg, right forearm and left forearm by IL Nailing left tibia, ORIF right radius and ulna with plate and screw and ORIF left radius and ulna with DCP with screws procedure.

¶39

Doctor-PW3 in his evidence has stated that the petitioner suffers pain and difficulty in walking, climbing stairs, he walks with pain and do limping, surgical scars are seen over

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33607 MFA No. 142 of 2017

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

both forearm and left knee, leg, wasting of left limb is seen on examination of the petitioner on 24.02.2016. He further stated that X-ray dated 24.02.2016 shows united fractures at both bones of both forearm and leg with implant in situ at all three sites (Limbs). He stated that total disability in respect of whole body at 35% by way of disabilities of both upper limbs and left lower limb.

¶43

The tribunal has rightly considered one third of 35% disability as 12% and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said disability. Thus, the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.2,33,280/- (Rs.9,000 x 12 x 18 x 12%). Admittedly, the petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 7 days and it is not stated as to whether he lost his academic year due to the injuries sustained. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries, the period of hospitalization and the other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.30,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. The Tribunal has already granted Rs.2,50,000/towards medical expenses and

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:33607 MFA No. 142 of 2017

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Rs.20,000/- for future medical expenses. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.6,13,280/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.5,14,520/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶47

The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is modified as under:

¶48

Heads	Amount in Rs.
1. Loss of future income	2,33,280/-
2. Medical expenses	2,50,000/-
3. Pain and Suffering	50,000/-
4. Loss of amenities	30,000/-
5. Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges	30,000/-
6. Future medical expenses	20,000/-
Total	6,13,280/-

¶49

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶50

(i) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:33607 MFA No. 142 of 2017

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

(ii) The appellant-claimant is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.6,13,280/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶55

(iii) The respondent insurance company has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal, and therefore, they are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.98,760/- with interest at 6% per annum within one month from the date of this order.

¶56

(iv) On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the

¶57

entire amount along with the interest accrued on it.

¶58

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶59

CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Harsha N v. Bajaj Allianz Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harsha N v. Bajaj Allianz Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd

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 Syed Imran Vs Smt Bibi Fathima Zehra

Manjunatha H C Vs Buden Sab

Smt. Padma Bohara Vs the Managing Director

Monika M a Vs Nithan G K.

Smt. Supriya B S Vs Sri Prajwal Kushalappa @ Dempsy

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Umadevi K