Sri Ravish M M Vs Arun Kumar M S

ARUN KUMAR M. S., S/O LATE SHANKARA, R/AT GANIGARA STREET, KUDLURU VILLAGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571313, (OWNER OF CAR BEARING REG No.KA-11-A-9848)

¶17

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:1965-DB MFA No. 2363 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

BALLAL CIRCLE, MYSURU-570004, INSURER OF CAR BEARING REG No.KA-11-A-9848)

¶22

&RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 20.06.2023 NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THEJUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.01.2023 PASSED IN MVC No.459/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and

¶27

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶30

The appellant injured in a road traffic accident that took place on 05.12.2020 involving a two wheeler bearing Regn.No.KA.09.X.8989 is before this Court not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the judgment and award dated 03.01.2023 in M.V.C. No.459/2021 with a prayer for enhancement of compensation.

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:1965-DB MFA No. 2363 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The accident that took place on 05.12.2020 involving a two wheeler bearing Regn.No.KA.09.X.8989 and the accidental injuries suffered by the appellant-injured are not in dispute in this appeal. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988¹ seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the above stated road traffic accident stating that he was working in the Office of a Chartered Accountant and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. It is stated that due to the injuries, he is not in a position to do the same work as he was doing prior to the accident. It is stated that the claimant-injured was an in-patient for 33 days and has taken treatment for the injuries sustained in the above stated accident.

¶35

2.1 The respondent-Insurance Company filed objections before the Tribunal denying the averments made in the claim petition and further stated that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant himself. It is also stated that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. However, it admitted the Policy.

¶36

1 MV Act

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:1965-DB MFA No. 2363 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

2.2 Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW1

¶41

and also examined the Doctor as PW.2 apart from marking Exs.P.1 to P.18. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents.

¶42

The Tribunal, on assessing the material on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.9,17,800/- with interest at 6% per annum, on the following heads;

¶43

Sl. No.	Heads	Compensation (in Rs.)
1	Expenses relating to Treatment Hospitalization and Medication	3,49,000/-
2	Loss of Earnings during treatment (laid up period)	29,000/-
3	Loss of Earnings/Future earnings on account of disability	4,69,800/-
4	Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of this injuries	40,000/-
5	Loss of amenities	15,000/-
6	Transportation, Nourishment, Attendant and Miscellaneous Expenditure	15,000/-
	Total	9,17,800/-

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:1965-DB MFA No. 2363 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the disability assessed by Tribunal is on the lower side and he submits that when the doctor had deposed that the claimant has suffered 58% disability to particular limb, Tribunal should have assessed the disability at 1/3^rd of the disability as assessed by the doctor. Learned counsel would submit that instead of assessing 1/3^rd disability taking note of the disability deposed by PW.2-Doctor, Tribunal has assessed the disability at 15% which needs to be enhanced. Further, learned counsel would submit that the compensation awarded under other heads is on the lower side. Taking into consideration the treatment taken and as the claimant was in-patient for nearly 33 days, the same needs to be enhanced. Thus, he would pray for enhancement of the compensation.

¶48

5. Per contra, Sri B.C. Shivanne Gowda, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and it needs no interference. Thus, learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the appeal.

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:1965-DB MFA No. 2363 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers and the records, the only point which falls for our consideration is as follows;

¶53

"Whether the claimant would be entitled to enhanced compensation?"

¶54

6.1 The answer to the above point would be in the 'affirmative' for the following reasons.

¶55

As stated above, the accident and accidental injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant are not in dispute in this appeal. Admittedly, PW.2-Doctor examined on behalf of the claimant has deposed that the claimant has suffered 58% disability. The Tribunal in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajkumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another² ought to have assessed the disability at 1/3^rd of the assessment of disability made by the doctor. Accordingly, the assessment of disability ought to have been at 19% and not at 15% as assessed by the Tribunal.

¶56

2 (2011) 1 SCC 343

¶57

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:1965-DB MFA No. 2363 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Admittedly, the claimant has taken treatment as an inpatient for 33 days. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering at Rs.40,000/- is on the lower side and we enhance the same to Rs.50,000/-.

¶60

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of amenities' is on the lower side. Taking note of the injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant viz, compound comminuted fracture of upper 1/3^rd right leg, post-traumatic compound comminuted fracture upper 1/3^rd right T/F fracture with upper ½ soft tissue defect as per Ex.P.7-wound certificate, the claimant would be entitled for Rs.50,000/- under the head 'loss of amenities' as against Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶61

Further, the compensation awarded towards "transportation, nourishment and miscellaneous expenses" is also on the lower side and the same is enhanced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.30,000/-.

¶62

Having regard to the nature of injuries, it would have taken three months to heal and therefore, 'loss of earning during laidup period' is enhanced from Rs.29,000/- to Rs.43,500/-.

¶63

Rs.14,500/-x3 + Rs.43,500/-

¶64

8 -

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:1965-DB MFA No. 2363 of 2023

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

Thus, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to modified

¶68

compensation on the head 'loss of future earning' as follows;

¶69

Rs.1,74,000/-x18x19% =Rs.5,95,080/-.

¶70

The compensation awarded towards 'hospitalisation and medication' is not disturbed.

¶71

Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

¶72

modified as under;

¶73

Sl. No.	Heads	Compensation (in Rs.)
1	Expenses relating to treatment hospitalization and medication	3,49,000/-
2	Loss of earnings during treatment (laid up period) [Rs.14,500/- x 3]	43,500/-
3	Loss of Earnings/Future earnings on account of disability [Rs.1,74,000/-x18x19%]	5,95,080/-
4	Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of this injuries	50,000/-
5	Loss of amenities	50,000/-
6	Transportation, Nourishment, Attendant and Miscellaneous Expenditure	30,000/-
	Total	11,17,580/-

¶74

9 -

¶75

NC: 2026:KHC:1965-DB MFA No. 2363 of 2023

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

For the foregoing reasons, the following;

¶78

(i) The appeal stands disposed of.

¶79

(ii) The appellant-claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.11,17,580/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.9,17,800/-. Thereby, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,99,780/-.

¶80

(iii) The enhanced compensation shall be deposited within four weeks.

¶81

(iv) The judgment and award of the Tribunal in respect of deposit and release of the compensation amount payable to the appellant-claimant remains unaltered.

¶82

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶83

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶84

MV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Sri Ravish M M v. Arun Kumar M S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ravish M M v. Arun Kumar M S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Leelavathi T Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Sri. J.R Bhaskar

Smt. Preethi. a. Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka

The Joint Commercial Tax Commissioner Vs M/S. Aj Enterprises

State of Karnataka Vs M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Smt Sunithamma Vs Sri Premkumar C