Sri. Arun K @ Arunkumar Vs Sri. Manjunath Reddy K

SRI. ARUN K @ ARUNKUMAR S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.156, HOSURU MAIN ROAD NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE SINGENA AGRAHARA, HUSKUR BENGALURU-560 099

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. UDAYA KUMAR R.L, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI. MANJUNATH REDDY K S/O KRISHNA REDDY T, MAJOR NO.54, YARANDANAHALLI JIGANI POST, BOMMASANDRA ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALURU-560 099

¶16

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, KRUSHI BHAVAN 6^TH FLOOR, HUNDSON CIRLCE BENGALURU-560 001 (REPRTED.BY ITS MANAGER)

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 07/07/2021 - R1 NOTICE IS DIPENSED WITH)

¶19

2 -

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:37197 MFA No. 2701 of 2021

¶22

CNR: KAHC010255062020

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.12.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.3285/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XX ACMM AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-24, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

The claimant, being dissatisfied with the

¶28

compensation of Rs.5,21,972/- awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.3285/2017 dated 26.12.2018, is in appeal.

¶29

The fact that the accident occurred and the further

¶30

fact that the offending vehicle was insured is not in dispute.

¶31

The Tribunal, on assessment of evidence, has

¶32

awarded the following sums as compensation:

¶33

Sl. No.	Particulars	Amount in(Rs.)
1.	Pain and Suffering	60,000
2.	Food and Nourishment, conveyance and attendant	25,000
3.	Medical expenses	2,69,452
4.	Loss of income during the period oftreatment	12,000
5.	Loss of future earnings	1,55,520

¶34

3 -

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:37197 MFA No. 2701 of 2021

¶37

CNR: KAHC010255062020

¶38

Total 5,21,972 Rounded off to 5,22,000

¶39

The Tribunal, on an analysis of the medical

¶40

evidence, has concluded that the claimant has suffered disability to the extent of 12% to the whole body.

¶41

I have perused the evidence of PW.2-Doctor and

¶42

wound certificate. The same depict that the claimant has following injuries:

¶43

i. Right Tibia fracture

¶44

ii. Right Femur fracture

¶45

iii. Left distal radius and ulna fracture

¶46

iv. Left scaphoid fracture

¶47

Since the Doctor has assessed the disability at 36%

¶48

to the right arm, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability at 1/3^rd of the same, which would be 12% to the whole body. Accordingly, the disability suffered by the claimant would be at 12%.

¶49

The Tribunal has determined the monthly income of

¶50

the claimant at Rs.6,000/-. Since there is no credible documentary evidence to ascertain the actual monthly income,

¶51

4 -

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:37197 MFA No. 2701 of 2021

¶54

CNR: KAHC010255062020

¶55

it would be appropriate and prudent to adopt the monthly income determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which, for the accident of the year 2017, would be Rs.11,000/-.

¶56

As the claimant was aged 19 years, a multiplier of '18' would have to be applied. Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,85,120/- (11,000 x 12 x 18 x 12%) towards 'loss of future income' .

¶57

In view of the nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant, it would be appropriate to take the laid up period as three months instead of two months. Thus, the amount of Rs.12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of income during the laid up period' would also stand enhanced to Rs.33,000/- (11,000 X 3 months).

¶58

The sums awarded under the head 'pain and suffering' and 'food and nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges' remain unaltered.

¶59

Having regard to the lasting effects of the injuries on the claimant, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of 'amenities' .

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:37197 MFA No. 2701 of 2021

¶62

5 -

¶63

CNR: KAHC010255062020

¶64

The sum awarded as ‘medical expenses’ at

¶65

Rs.2,69,452/- , being based on documentary evidence, do not

¶66

call for modification and hence confirmed.

¶67

Since the claimant requires surgery for removal of

¶68

implant, I deem it appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- towards 'future medical expenses' .

¶69

Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and the claimant would be entitled to the following

¶70

compensation:

¶71

Sl. No.	Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
1.	Pain and Suffering	60,000	60,000
2.	Food and Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	25,000	25,000
3.	Medical expenses	2,69,452	2,69,452
4.	Loss of income during the period of treatment	12,000	33,000
5.	Loss of future earnings	1,55,520	2,85,120
6.	Future medical expenses	-	50,000
7.	Loss of amenities	-	30,000
	Total	5,21,972 rounded off to 5,22,000	7,52,572

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:37197 MFA No. 2701 of 2021

¶74

6 -

¶75

CNR: KAHC010255062020

¶76

Thus, the claimant is held entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.2,30,572/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said amount.

¶77

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within a period of six weeks

¶78

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶79

The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.

¶80

The appeal is accordingly allowed in part .

¶81

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶82

HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Sri. Arun K @ Arunkumar v. Sri. Manjunath Reddy K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Arun K @ Arunkumar v. Sri. Manjunath Reddy K

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

Smt Sarojamma Vs Mr Manjunath

Sri Raghavendra Vs Puttaswamy

Rathnamma Vs Iffco - Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Shankare Gowda Vs Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

The Managing Director Vs Shivanna

Yogesha Vs Mahadeva