Sri Ganesh Poojary Vs Sri Madhuka S Kundar

SRI MADHUKA S KUNDAR S/O SUDHAKAR S. KUNDAR AGE MAJOR R/AT H.NO 117, MADHU NIVAS NADUHITHLU, UPPINAKOTE VARAMBALLI VILLAGE, BRAHMAVARA UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 213.

¶14

THE UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENEAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE: CITY TRADE CENTRE 1ST FLOOR, OPP: CITY HOSPITAL KADRI, MANGALORE-575 003, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 SERVED)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:15375 MFA No. 4841 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.07.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.713/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 20.07.2022 passed in MVC No.713/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Kundapura, for enhancing the compensation.

¶24

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶25

The injured claimant met with an accident on 06.04.2018 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.9,10,000 with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. However, the tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record,

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15375 MFA No. 4841 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

granted, an amount Rs.4,96,119/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.,

¶29

Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred in which it is mainly contended, that the petitioner was a painter and earning Rs.22,000/- per month and tribunal granted meager amount under various other heads. Disability was taken as 9% to the whole body and the doctor assessed the disability as 20% loss of grip strenght, 15% loss of sensation, 50% pronation and spination and 38% loss of movement, and 11% disability and thus requested for the enhancement of the compensation

¶30

Learned counsel for respondent stated, that it is a case of dislocation of left forearm, but it was shown as fracture and the disability of the left upper limb. He was not a treated doctor and he assed the disability as 29% in excessive. But still the tribunal has taken 1/3^rd of the disability rightly and moreover, the future prospects were also granted by the tribunal and reasonable amount was granted by the tribunal under other heads. Therefore, it needs no interference. PW3 doctor stated that the petitioner sustained injuries such as

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15375 MFA No. 4841 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

galleazzi fracture dislocation left forearm and left index abrasion and treated with elbow operated ORIF plating under Branchial block on the elbow slab and put on the elbow slab. The x-ray shows mal-united fracture left radius shaft with plate in situ and assessed the total disability of the left upper limb as 29%. He further stated that petitioner has difficulty in lifting and gripping the object and doing fine work in the upper limb and further stated that he requires another surgery for removal of implant from the left forearm and estimated cost of the same was Rs.30,000/-. Tribunal added future prospects though the disability is less than 20%.

¶34

Therefore, this court finds that the total amounts granted by the tribunal towards other head is just and reasonable and this court finds no reason to interfere with the case.

¶35

In the result, appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the tribunal.

¶36

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶37

AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64

Sri Ganesh Poojary v. Sri Madhuka S Kundar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ganesh Poojary v. Sri Madhuka S Kundar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punith Vs H. R. Kanthegowda

Sri. v. L. Siddaiah Vs Sri. Gangaraju. M. B

Smt. Devika @ Geetha Vs Sri Arun

Sri Ningappa Vs Babu Gurupad Biradar

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Sri C S Madegowda

Sri Mohammed Jameel Vs Sri Divakar P N