Munna Singh Vs Naveen T

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.14.07.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1074/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-13, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard the arguments of learned counsel from both sides.

¶25

The present appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner against the order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the II Additional Judge and ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru in M.V.C No.1074/2020.

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:7694 MFA No. 2923 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

The petition averments in brief are that, injured met with an accident on 04.01.2020 while he was riding Honda Activa and waiting to cross the road at NH-48 at that time a motorcycle dashed against him. Due to the accident petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Petitioner filed claim petition claiming compensation of ₹16,50,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of ₹5,29,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of petition till deposit by partly allowing the claim petition with cost.

¶29

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, insofar as partly rejecting the claim of the appellant, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contented that meager compensation was granted under the relevant heads. PW3 doctor assessed the disability as 51% to the lower limb and 17% to the whole body. But it

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:7694 MFA No. 2923 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

was not considered by the Tribunal. Interest is to be granted at the rate of 9%.

¶35

Heard the arguments of both sides.

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondents stated that

¶37

petitioner filed documents as per Exs.P.12 and P.13. Respondent counsel argued that in paragraph Nos. 17 and 18, the Tribunal rightly discussed all the aspects for nongranting compensation under loss of future earnings. The perusal of the same shows that the petitioner was aged 48 years and multiplier is to be taken as ‘13’. He stated that he was working as an operator in Calcutta Tools and earning ₹40,000/per month. He produced leave certificate, salary certificate and bank statement under Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.13. Leave was granted from 01.01.2020 to 31.03.2021 though he met with an accident on 04.01.2020. No reasons are assigned in the leave application and it was not mentioned why he was absent for the said period. He was not paid salary for 3 months as

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:7694 MFA No. 2923 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

per Ex.P.12. But later he resigned the job and his settlement was made as a full and final settlement. It was also observed that he received salary for October 2020 and February 2021 at the rate of ₹33,000/- per month from the said company, that is after the accident. It was stated as per the bank statement Ex.P.13 his salary was ₹28,000/- to ₹42,000/-. Though he stated that he was getting ₹35,000/- per month, he has not filed any IT returns or pay slips. Petitioner has not examined his employee.

¶41

The above evidence clearly shows that after the

¶42

accident he received salary only for 2 months and later he resigned and received the entire retirement benefits as full and final settlement. So how much amount he received towards retirement benefits is not mentioned. Only the amounts received towards salary for 2 months is shown as ₹33,000/- per month. Though he applied for leave, the reasons for applying for leave are not mentioned. But he has not received any salary for 3 months. Though he was

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:7694 MFA No. 2923 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

working as an operator in the said company, he has not examined the employer and not filed the IT returns.

¶46

As per the medical evidence, he sustained 51% disability to the left lower limb and 17% to the whole body. PW-3, doctor stated that petitioner sustained left leg both bones fracture, undergone surgery with closed reduction and internal fixation with IMIL nail on 04.01.2020 and later the petitioner developed left leg compartment syndrome for which he under fasciotomy with wound debridement. Later he developed anemia and underwent skin grafting. Petitioner was complaining of unable to walk normally, unable to sit down, squat and sit cross leg, loss of sensation n over the left leg and foot. PW-3 also stated that fractures are reunited and after follow up the difficulties mentioned will also be reduced and there is no fracture to the hip, knee, ankle joint, no loss of power, no restriction and if the range of movement is 90 degree there will be any problem for walking and climbing stairs. Along with disability certificate, he

¶47

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:7694 MFA No. 2923 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

produced X-rays under Ex.P.22 and Ex.P.23. The Tribunal considered the functional disability as 12%. Admittedly, petitioner has not proved his income. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to consider his notional income as `14,500/- as per chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority as he met with an accident in the year 2020. Admittedly, he received salary for two months after the accident. Therefore, he is not entitled for any loss of future earning.

¶50

He was admitted in the hospital for 40 days. Considering the nature of injuries and period of hospitalisation and the disability assessed by the doctor, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of ₹1,00,000/- for pain and suffering and ₹50,000/- for loss of amenities. Tribunal already granted ₹40,000/- towards food nourishment, transportation and attendant charges and also granted loss of income during laid up period as ₹60,000/- and it needs no interference. Tribunal granted ₹3,88,814/-towards medical expenses and it is confirmed.

¶51

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:7694 MFA No. 2923 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

PW2 doctor stated that he requires another surgery for

¶54

removal of the implants and estimated the cost of the surgery as ₹1,30,000/-. This Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of ₹75,000/- towards future medical expenses.

¶55

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court

¶56

are as below:

¶57

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Medical expenses	3,88,814/-
Pain and Suffering	1,00,000/-
Loss of Amenities	50,000/-
Transportation, Extra Nourishment & Attendant Charges	40,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period	60,000/-
Future Medical Expenses	75,000/-
Total	7,13,814/-

¶58

Compensation is enhanced from 5,29,000/- to 7,13,814/and the enhanced compensation is

¶59

`1,84,814/-, which carries interest at the rate of 6% per

¶60

annum.

¶61

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:7694 MFA No. 2923 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Accordingly, the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

(i) The appeal is partly allowed.

¶66

(ii) The judgment and award dated 14.07.2022, passed in MVC No.1074/2020 by the II Addl. Judge & ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru is modified;

¶67

(iii) The Insurance company - respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of `1,84,814/- with interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶68

(iv) Appellant/petitioner is not entitled for interest for the delay period of 895 days as per order in IA No.1/2025 dated 09.02.2026.

¶69

On such deposit petitioner is permitted to withdraw

¶70

the entire amount along with interest accrued on it.

¶71

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶72

BVK

¶73

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Munna Singh v. Naveen T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna Singh v. Naveen T

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.Ramamani K U Vs Ravi H R @ Channegowda

Krishna Vs R Sridhar

Managing Director Ksrtc Vs Premkumar

Chaitra Vs Girish Chunchan S

Shek Mohamod Gouse Vs Reliance General Assurance Co. Ltd.

Sri Rathnappa Vs Sri Shantha Kumar