Smt Hema N Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.

SMT HEMA N W/O PREMKUMAR AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT CHIKKAMARALAVADI MARALAVADI POST AND HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT PIN - 562 121.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. GIRIMALLAIAH., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD REGIONAL OFFICE

¶15

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI

¶16

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

T P HUB NO.144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX M G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 BY ITS MANAGER.

¶18

THE DIRECTOR MARALAVADI CHSE CENTRE MARALAVADI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT PIN - 562 121.

¶19

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SKDRDP (R) DHARMASTHALA, CANARA SOUTH DISTRICT

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:20731 MFA No. 3873 of 2024

HC-KAR

CANARA SOUTH

KARNATAKA - 574 216.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. MAMATHA S SHANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. E I SANMATHI., ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 30.08.2024, NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 D/W)

¶27

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.02.03.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.4335/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-25), ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 02.03.2024 passed in MVC No.4335/2021 on the file of the XXIII Additional Small Causes Judge, MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-25), seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶32

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1/Insurance

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20731 MFA No. 3873 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Company. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶36

The petitioner/injured claimant met with an accident on 31.01.2021 and filed petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.3,52,500/- 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 she sustained fracture injuries and was admitted to the hospital as an inpatient for 16 days. The doctor assessed her whole-body disability at 15%. She also suffered facial disfigurement. At the time of the accident, she was aged 20 years, working as a coolie and earning Rs.18,000/- per month. The Tribunal granted meagre amounts under other heads. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶37

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 stated that the petitioner sustained injuries to her face and it will not have any impact on her day-to-day activities. Therefore, the Tribunal has

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20731 MFA No. 3873 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

rightly considered the disability at 5% and the same is to be confirmed.

¶41

Though the petitioner/injured stated that she was earning Rs.18,000/- per month, she has not filed any income proof. As she met with an accident in the year 2021, the Tribunal has rightly considered her notional income as Rs.15,000/- per month, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. She was aged 20 years and the relevant multiplier is '18'. Ex.P.5 is the wound certificate, Ex.P.7 is the discharge summary and Ex.P.8 is the three OPD records issued by the hospital. The petitioner/injured also examined PW.3-Maxillofacial surgeon and he stated that the petitioner sustained injury over left side of the face, while working in Ragi Field and harvesting Ragi crop. He found the following injuries:

¶42

"1. Avulsed laceration extending from outer angle of left eye to the angle of mandible and lower lip exposing underlying lacerated muscles, vessels, nerves and fractured bone fragments of maxilla.

¶43

2. Comminuted fracture of left maxilla and avulsion of upper lip."

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20731 MFA No. 3873 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Injuries are grievous in nature. The petitioner/injured underwent debridement, suturing under general anesthesia, open reduction and internal fixation of fracture left maxilla under general anesthesia. The petitioner is complains of scar over left side of face, loss of upper front tooth, lower front teeth, difficulty in chewing food and difficulty in mouth opening. On clinical examination, extended scar over left side of face, occlusal disturbance, trismus and loss of teeth, 21,31,32,33,34,35 (6 teeth). Post operative X-ray shows loss of teeth 21,31,32,33,34,35, bone plates in place and fracture united and assessed the whole body disability as 15%.

¶47

Admittedly, the petitioner was working as a coolie, as she lost several teeth and sustained fractures to her face, she has difficulty in chewing food and opening her mouth. As such, she could not eat properly and also faced difficulty in performing her work. Therefore, the observation of the Tribunal that the injuries sustained by her will not have any impact on her work cannot be accepted. Relying upon the medical evidence, this Court finds it reasonable to assess the whole body disability at 15%. Accordingly, the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.4,86,000/- (15,000 × 12 × 18 × 15%).

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:20731 MFA No. 3873 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

The petitioner incurred Rs.35,428/- towards medical expenses as per Ex.P.10 and since the Tribunal has already granted the said amount, the same is confirmed. The petitioner was admitted in the hospital as an inpatient for 16 days. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and other relevant factors, the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering and the same is confirmed. The petitioner is entitled to Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.40,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. The petitioner might not have attended any other work at least for a period of three months. Therefore, a sum of Rs.45,000/- (15,000 × 3) is awarded towards loss of income during the laid-up period. The doctor has advised that she requires another surgery for replacement of teeth and the estimated cost of the same is Rs.80,000/-. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to award Rs.60,000/- towards future medical expenses.

¶51

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is

¶52

as below:

¶53

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:20731 MFA No. 3873 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1.	Towards pain and suffering	60,000/-
2	Towards medical expenses	35,428/-
3	Towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges	40,000/-
4.	Towards loss of amenities	30,000/-
5	Towards loss of income during the laid up period	45,000/-
6	Towards future medical expenses	60,000/-
7	Towards loss of future earning capacity	4,86,000/-
	Total	7,56,428/-

¶56

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total

¶57

compensation of Rs.7,56,428/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶58

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶61

ii. The judgment and award dated 02.03.2024 passed in MVC No.4335/2021 on the file of the

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:20731 MFA No. 3873 of 2024

¶63

8 -

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

XXIII Additional Small Causes Judge, MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-25), is modified.

¶66

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.7,56,428/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.3,52,500/- granted by the Tribunal.

¶67

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 enhanced compensation of Rs.4,03,928/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶68

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

¶69

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶70

AMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Smt Hema N v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Hema N v. National 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. Susheela H N Vs Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Sri. Vinay Prasad Vs the Managing Director, Bmtc

Sushma H M Vs Shashi Kumar D

Smt M J Nisarga Vs a M Jagadeesh

Mrs Nayanika Rajashekara Vs Vivek Desai

Shyamalamma Vs Reliance Gen Insurance Company Ltd.