B Anjali Vs M Ajith Kumar

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.06.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.2612/2021 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 ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 22.06.2023 passed in MVC No.2612/2021 on the file of the II Additional Judge and ACMM, Court Of Small Causes, Bengaluru, for enhancing the compensation.

¶26

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6914 MFA No. 47 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Injured claimant met with an accident on 17.05.2020 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.20 lakhs. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted global compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of petition till realisation.

¶30

Aggrieved by the said award, he preferred an appeal and mainly contended that the Tribunal granted global compensation including Ex.P7/Medical Bills. Petitioner sustained grievous head injury. As per Ex.P4 the wound certificate and Ex.P6 is the discharge summary, injured sustained severe pain, swelling, deformity of crush injury, left lower limb-suggestive of type III B compound fracture of both bones left leg, lacerated wound of measuring 4x5cm over medial aspect of left leg. He was discharged after Medical Advise. PW4 doctor stated that the whole body disability is 20% and she was unable to bite and chew hard food due to maxilla fracture. The Tribunal ought to have taken monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.20,000/and thus requested for enhancement. Petitioner stated that she was a coolie and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. But she has not filed any income proof. As she met with an accident in the year 2020 her

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:6914 MFA No. 47 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

notional income is to be taken as Rs.14,500/- as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. She was aged 39 years and the multiplier taken is 15.

¶35

The petitioner examined PW4/Dr.N.Chaitanya Babu, dental surgeon and he stated that petitioner sustained Orofacial injuries like PAN facial fracture and assessed the whole body disability at 20%. He produced X-ray under Ex.P19. In the cross-examination, he stated that he is not a treating doctor and she came to him only for assessment of the disability due to facial injuries. He verified wound certificate and discharge summary. There is no such facial injury mentioned in the wound certificate and it is only mentioned as swelling on the right face. In the discharge summary, fracture is mentioned. It was further suggested that he is not competant to assess the disability and the assessment is false and that there is no functional disability due to the facial injury sustained in the accident. Tribunal considered that the petitioner suffered pain swelling deformity of right side of the face, left ear bleed, scalp laceration and was discharged from the hospital on the same day and accordingly granted global compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with interest 6% p.a. In the cross

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:6914 MFA No. 47 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

examination of PW4, it is stated that he is not aware about the provisions which provides disability to the facial injuries and there is no functional disability due to the facial injuries. Injuries will not lead to any loss of earning capacity. Thus, tribunal has not granted any amount under the head loss of future earnings. Due to injuries sustained to the face, it cannot be said that she sustained any loss of future earning capacity therefore she is not entitled for any amount under the said title.

¶40

Considering the nature of injuries and the disability assessed by the doctor and the period of hospitalization, the fact that she was in the hospital only for 1 day. This court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.15,000/ - for pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.15,000 /- for transportation and extra nourishment. Further, petitioner might not have attended any other work at least for a period of 2 months due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Hence, Rs.29,000/- is granted under the head loss of income during laid up period.

¶41

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:6914 MFA No. 47 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Thus in all, components awarded by this court are

¶44

as below,

¶45

Sl. Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1	Pain and suffering	15,000
2	Loss of amenities	15,000
3	Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges.	15,000
4	Loss of income during laid down period	29,000
5	Tribunal global compensation	50,000
	Total	1,24,000

¶46

Hence, the compensation granted by tribunal is enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,24,000 /- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶47

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶50

ii. The judgment and award dated 22.06.2023 passed in MVC No.2612/2021 on the file of the

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:6914 MFA No. 47 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

II Additional Judge and ACMM, Court Of Small Causes, Bengaluru, is modified.

¶55

iii. The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.74,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.50,000/- granted by the tribunal.

¶56

iv. Respondent/Insurance Company has already deposited the awarded amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.74,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶57

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

¶58

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶59

AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65

B Anjali v. M Ajith Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Anjali v. M Ajith Kumar

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 Brundha K R Vs Mr Dharshan Gowda S B

Sri Mahesh Vs M/S Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Violet Tauro Vs the National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri Govindanayaka Vs Puttaswamy

Oman Kuttan Vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance

Smt. Geetha W/O Shankaregowa Vs Shivanna