Pavan Kumar. K Vs Iffco-Tokio General Ins Co. Ltd.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:29847 MFA No. 3943 of 2023

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3943 OF 2023 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PAVAN KUMAR. K S/O K. SESHAGIRI RAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.36, PARAGI LANE, NEAR VADAKAYARAYA TEMPLE, 34TH WARD DEVNGAPET, NCC HOSPITAL, BELLARY - 583 203.

¶9

BANGALORE ADDRESS-NO.55/48, TIRUMALA NILAYA, 12TH CROSS, NEAR KODANDARAM TEMPLE, VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE - 03.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., NO.08, 3RD FLOOR, 3RD BLOCK, KSCMF BUILDING, CUNNIGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052. BRANCH AT 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, IFFCO-TOKIO TOWER, PLOT NO.3, SECTOR-29, GURGAON, HARYANA - 122 001. BY ITS MANAGER.

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29847 MFA No. 3943 of 2023

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

MR. M.S. RAJU S/O GOPIMAHALINGAM, MAJOR, R/A NO.18, 2ND MAIN, AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT, CHOLANAYAKANAHLLI, R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. SANMATHI E.I, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 19.06.2023, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.07.03.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.3324/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, SMALL CAUSES AND ADDITIONAL MACT, MEMBER, BENGALURU, (SCCH-7), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in Judgment and Award dated 07.03.2023 passed in MVC No.3324/2021 by

¶25

IX Additional Small Causes Judge, Court of Small Causes and Additional MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-7).

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:29847 MFA No. 3943 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

2. E ver though the matter is listed today for

¶30

admission, with the consent of both the learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1 - Insurer, the matter is taken up for disposal.

¶31

T he appellant/claimant made a claim petition seeking award of compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident which took place on 08.03.2021 contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Maruthi Swift Car bearing registration No.KA-04-MK-8485.

¶32

4. The Tribunal recorded the evidence. The

¶33

Tribunal appreciating the evidence, assessed the compensation and awarded the compensation under different heads is as under:

¶34

Towards loss of future income	Rs.	5,84,035.00
Towards pain and sufferings	Rs.	50,000.00
Towards medicine and hospital bill	Rs.	1,18,852.00
Towards loss of earning during rest period and attendant charges	Rs.	25,000.00
Towards loss of amenities	Rs.	25,000.00
Future medical expenses	Rs.	20,000.00
Total	Rs.	8,22,887.00

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:29847 MFA No. 3943 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

5. The Tribunal has also awarded interest at the

¶39

rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and directed respondent No.1 - Insurer to pay the compensation amount with interest.

¶40

6. The claimant filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶41

7. Heard the learned counsel for appellant had learned counsel for respondent No.1 - Insurer.

¶42

8. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the claimant has sustained bicondylar fracture of left tibia and undergone ORIF with LCP left tibial condyle. P.W.3 is the doctor who examined the claimant has assessed the disability of lower limb at 33% and whole body at 11%. The Tribunal has erred in taking the disability only at 8%. He further contended that, the claimant is entitled to loss of income during laid-up period for three months and the Tribunal has only awarded

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29847 MFA No. 3943 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Rs.25,000/- towards the same. With these, he prayed to allow the appeal.

¶46

9. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 - Insurer would contend that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and there are no grounds for enhancement. The disability taken by the Tribunal at 8% is just and proper. With these, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶47

10. H aving heard both the learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1 - Insurer, the Court has perused the judgment and award.

¶48

11. The claimant is aged forty years and he was working as a Marketing Executive. The claimant has sustained bicondylar fracture of left tibia and undergone ORIF with LCP left tibial condyle. P.W.3 is the doctor who examined the claimant has assessed the disability of lower limb at 33% and whole body at 11%. Considering the fact that the claimant is a Marketing Executive whose work is

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:29847 MFA No. 3943 of 2023

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

to move from one place to another place, the Tribunal ought to have taken the disability at 11% as stated by the doctor instead of 8%. Therefore, the disability of the whole body is to be taken at 11%. Considering the same the loss of future income is calculated as under:

¶52

40,558 X 12 X 15 X 11% = 8,03,048.

¶53

12. The claimant who has sustained the above injury requires to take rest atleast for a period of three months. Considering the same, the claimant is entitled to loss of income during laid-up period for three months. The income of the claimant per month is Rs.40,558/- and considering the same, the loss of income during laid-up period is Rs.1,21,674/- (40,558 X 3).

¶54

13. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and proper.

¶55

14. The claimant is entitled to total compensation under different heads is as under:

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:29847 MFA No. 3943 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

1	Loss of future income	Rs.	8,03,048-00
2	Loss of income during laid-up period	Rs.	1,21,674-00
3	Pain and sufferings	Rs.	50,000-00
4	Medical expenses	Rs.	1,18,852-00
5	Loss of amenities	Rs.	25,000-00
6	Future medical expenses	Rs.	20,000-00
	Total	Rs.	11,38,574-00

¶60

15. The claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.11,38,574/- as against Rs.8,22,887/- awarded by Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

¶61

16. The claimant is entitled to enhanced

¶62

compensation of Rs.3,15,687/- (11,38,574 - 8,22,887) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

¶63

17. Respondent No.1 - Insurer is liable to pay

¶64

enhanced compensation amount with interest.

¶65

18. In view of the above, the following:

¶66

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:29847 MFA No. 3943 of 2023

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

ORDER

¶69

i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part.

¶70

ii) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.3,15,687/with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

¶71

iii) Respondent No.1 - Insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from this day. Failing which, it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from this day till payment.

¶72

iv) The claimant is entitled to release of entire enhanced compensation amount.

¶73

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶74

KLV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Pavan Kumar. K v. Iffco-Tokio General Ins Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavan Kumar. K v. Iffco-Tokio General Ins Co. 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

Sridhara v Vs Ghouse Khan

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shobhana

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri. Pandiyan Velu @ Pandiyan

V S Shivanna Vs Kumara S Chandan R

The Managing Director Vs Sri. Shaik Ahmed Shariff @ S, Ahmed Shariff

Sri. Shaik Ahmed Sheriff @ S. Ahmed Shariff Vs the Managing Director