Deeksha S Vs Govindagowda

DEEKSHA .S D/O SHIVALINGAIAH K.C. AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS NO.1058/A, DEEKSHA NILAYA 5TH MAIN ROAD KANCHAGATTA ROAD SHADAKSHARA MUTT EXTNS TIPTUR TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. HALESHA R.G. ADV.,)

¶12

AND:

¶13

GOVINDAGOWDA S/O SHIVAMURTHY NO.15, SUNARCHALA NILAYA NEAR PARK VASAVI NAGAR SIRA TOWN AND TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572137.

¶14

RELIANCE GEN., INS., CO., LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR CENTUANAURY BUILDING M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-01.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. LAKSHMINARAYAN C, ADV., FOR R2 R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:19092 M.F.A. No.41/2020

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.02.04.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.950/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-15), 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 VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the injured appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 02.04.2019 passed in MVC.No.950/2018 by the XIII Additional Judge,

¶25

Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-15) (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

¶26

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with

¶27

the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶28

Sri.Halesha R.G., learned counsel appearing for

¶29

the appellant submits that the appellant sustained severe injuries in a road accident including a urinary bladder

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:19092 M.F.A. No.41/2020

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

injury of left vaginal tear. It is submitted that considering the nature of the injuries, PW2 assessed the disability at 15% to the whole body; however, the Tribunal reduced the disability at 10%. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation under the head of loss of future income due to permanent disability. It is also submitted that the appellant was aged about 24 years at the time of the accident, was provided treatment at various hospitals and was hospitalized as an inpatient for a period of 11 days. Hence, he seeks to enhance the compensation by allowing the appeal.

¶34

Per contra, Sri.Lakshminarayan C., learned

¶35

counsel for respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the evidence of the injured appellant clearly shows that she has continued her employment in Nokia Company and is earning Rs.35,000/per month. Hence, awarding compensation under the head of loss of future income due

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:19092 M.F.A. No.41/2020

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

to disability does not arise. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the

¶40

appeal.

¶41

I have heard the arguments on both the sides

¶42

and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶43

The appellant as well as the respondent are not in dispute that the appellant met with a road accident on 03.02.2018 and sustained grievous injuries. The averments in the claim petition indicate that the injured was aged about 24 years at the time of the accident and was employed at Nokia Company, Manyatha Tech Park, Bengaluru and earning Rs.35,000/- per month. In support of her case, the claimant examined herself as PW1 and also examined Dr.Nagaraj B.N. as PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. On the other hand, the respondent examined RW1 and got marked Ex.R1. The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,66,500/-. It is to be noticed that the appellant sustained following injuries:

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:19092 M.F.A. No.41/2020

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

“Left Sacral zone B fracture.

¶48

Displaced fracture of right superior inferior pubic rami fracture with dislocation of symphysis pubic joint.

¶49

Displaced fracture of left transverse process of L5 vertebra.

¶50

Urinary bladder injury of left vaginal tear.”

¶51

A perusal of the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2, along with the medical evidence available on record and having regard to the nature of the fracture injuries sustained, the Tribunal has appropriately assessed the disability at 10%. The Tribunal has also recorded a clear finding that though the injured appellant has claimed to have left the job, she has failed to produce any document to show that she was terminated or had discontinued. In view of such evidence, the Tribunal has rightly declined to award compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability. In my considered view, the said finding is strictly in consonance with the facts and law on record.

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:19092 M.F.A. No.41/2020

¶53

6 -

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

The award of compensation by the Tribunal

¶56

under the heads of medical expenses and loss of permanent physical impairments remains unaltered. However, considering the fact that the injured was a young woman aged 24 years, who sustained the aforesaid fractures, injuries and provided treatment, I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is required to be reassessed by appropriately enhancing the same. The appellant is entitled to the modified compensation as under:

¶57

HEADS	AMOUNT (in Rs.)
Pain & suffering	70,000
Loss of amenities	60,000
Medical expenses	4,16,500
Loss of income during laid-up period (Rs.35000 X 2)	70,000
Towards conveyance, attendant charges,	25,000
food and nourishment
Future medical expenses	25,000
Loss of marriage prospectus	75,000
Loss of Permanent physical impairments	75,000
Total	8,16,500

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:19092 M.F.A. No.41/2020

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 8,16,500 /- as against Rs.6,66,500/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶62

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶63

following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

a) Appeal stands allowed in part .

¶66

b) The impugned judgment and award of the

¶67

Tribunal is modified to an extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 8,16,500 /- as against Rs.6,66,500/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶68

c) The compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment excluding the interest for the delayed period of 112 days as per the order dated 07.03.2023.

¶69

8 -

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:19092 M.F.A. No.41/2020

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

d) The Insurance Company shall deposit the

¶73

enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶74

e) On such deposit, the Tribunal shall release the entire enhanced compensation amount in favour of the appellant.

¶75

f) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶76

g) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶77

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶78

ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Deeksha S v. Govindagowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deeksha S v. Govindagowda

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

K K Nagaraj Vs Manjunath S N

Sri. C.N. Nagaraja Vs M/S. the National Insurance Company Limited

Sri Erappa Havaragi Vs the Divisional Controller

Prakash Gandhi Vs Dr. Srinivasan

Sri Manjunatha M Nayak Vs Sri T S Ravi Kumar

Raju Vs State of Karnataka