Sri. Hanumanthaiah Vs Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd.

SRI. HANUMANTHAIAH S/O LATE KENGAYYA NOW AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 17, 1ST MAIN, 9TH CROSS, VIGNESHWARA NAGARA SUNKADA KATTE, VISHWANEEDAM BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. GIRIMALLAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

GO DIGIT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., PIONEER ATLANTIS NO. 94-95, 4^TH 'B' CROSS ROAD Digitally signed 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA by PADMASHREE BENGALURU - 560 095 SHEKHAR BY ITS MANAGER. DESAI

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

MR. SRINIVASA H.C S/O CHANNAIAH H.K, MAJOR (AGE OF R-2 NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANT) HANCHEEPURA VILLAGE, AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 111.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MURALIDHARA N, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 - SERVED)

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18617 MFA No. 3795 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.03.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.5069/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-26), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under

¶24

Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the common judgment and award dated 18.03.2024 passed in MVC Nos.5068/2021 and 5069/2021. However, MFA No.3795/2024 is filed against the award passed in MVC No.5069/2021 on the file of the XXIV Additional SCJ & ACMM and Member-MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-26), for enhancing the compensation.

¶25

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18617 MFA No. 3795 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

No.1/Insurance Company. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶29

The petitioner/injured claimant met with an

¶30

accident on 02.08.2021 and filed petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.5,89,957/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed and mainly contended that the petitioner/injured sustained multiple fractures, which are grievous in nature. He was hospitalized for a period of 50 days in two different spells. The petitioner was aged 53 years and was working as a helper, earning Rs.18,000/- per month. The petitioner also examined the doctor as PW.4 and he assessed the disability of the lower limb at 53% and that of the whole body disability at 17.66%. But the Tribunal erred in considering the same as 15%, which is on the lower side. The Tribunal has awarded meagre amounts under other

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:18617 MFA No. 3795 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

heads. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the

¶35

compensation.

¶36

Though the petitioner stated that he was working as a helper and earning Rs.18,000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2021, the Tribunal has rightly considered his notional income as Rs.15,000/- per month, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and the same is confirmed. The petitioner/injured was aged 53 years and the applicable multiplier is ‘11’. The petitioner filed wound certificates under Exs.P.16 and P.23, two discharge summaries under Ex.P.17 and also outpatient records under Ex.P.18. The petitioner examined the doctor as PW.4, he is an Orthopedic Surgeon. He stated that the petitioner sustained the following injuries:

¶37

"1. Right femur shaft fracture with bone loss with open type 111 b wound.

¶38

2. Pubic diastasis with apc type 2 injury 3. Urinary bladder injury

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:18617 MFA No. 3795 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

The petitioner underwent wound debridement and external fixation for femur, urinary bladder repair on 18.8.21 CRIF with CC screws for SI joint on 8.9.21.

¶43

Range of movements of right knee, hip

¶44

restricted.

¶45

Healed scar mark over rt hip noted

¶46

Quadriceps wasting is seen

¶47

Associated with pain on movtments knee hip

¶48

Daily activities cross leg sitting, squatting for

¶49

using Indian toilets were found to be difficulty in rt limb

¶50

x ray right femur fracture united with implant

¶51

in situ Pelvis with both hips shows si joint arthritis and pubic distasis."

¶52

The doctor assessed the physical disability of

¶53

the limb at 53% and that of the whole body disability at 17.66%. He further stated that the petitioner require one more surgery for implant removal and the estimated cost of the said surgery is Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to take the disability at 1/3rd of 53% i.e., 18%. Accordingly, the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.3,56,400/- (15,000 × 12 × 11 × 18%). The petitioner has also incurred medical expenses amounting to Rs.87,957/- as per Exs.P.20 and P.21. The Tribunal has already awarded the said amount and the same is

¶54

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18617 MFA No. 3795 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

confirmed. The petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 50 days, as per the discharge summaries under Ex.P.17. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to award Rs.75,000/- towards pain and suffering,

¶57

Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.60,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment, and attendant charges. The petitioner might not have attended to any other work at least for a period of five months. Therefore,

¶58

the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.75,000/- towards loss of income during the laid-up period and the same is confirmed. The petitioner is also entitled to future medical expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

¶59

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court

¶60

is as below:

¶61

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:18617 MFA No. 3795 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1.	Towards pain and suffering	75,000/-
2	Towards medical expenses	87,957/-
3	Towards loss of amenities	50,000/-
4	Towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges	60,000/-
5	Towards loss of income during laid up period	75,000/-
6	Towards loss of future earning capacity	3,56,400/-
7.	Towards future medical expenses	20,000/-
	Total	7,24,357/-

¶64

7. Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a

¶65

total compensation of Rs.7,24,357/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶66

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶69

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:18617 MFA No. 3795 of 2024

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

ii. The judgment and award dated 18.03.2024 passed in MVC No.5069/2021 on the file of the XXIV Additional SCJ & ACMM and Member-MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-26), is modified.

¶72

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.7,24,357/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.5,89,957/granted by the tribunal.

¶73

iv. Respondent No.1/Insurance Company has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent No.1/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,34,400/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶74

9 -

¶75

NC: 2026:KHC:18617 MFA No. 3795 of 2024

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

v. On such deposit, petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same.

¶78

vi. The Tribunal has already directed for pay and recovery as there was no DL. Therefore, insurance company is at liberty to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law.

¶79

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶80

AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Sri. Hanumanthaiah v. Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Hanumanthaiah v. Go Digit General Insurance Company 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

Smt. Hemalatha. B. S. Vs Sri. Manjunath. M

Misba Banu Vs Mohammed Abu Saleh

Yogesha Vs Prathapa @ Naveen

Sri H C Sreenivasamurthy Vs the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri Nagaraja Gowda Vs Sri N N Guruprasad

Sri Shivaramu Vs Smt Moksha Suresh