Manjula Vs Chiranjeevi

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.06.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1052/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:15113 MFA No. 5413 of 2024

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 10.06.2024 passed in MVC No.1052/2022, by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru for enhancing the compensation.

¶29

Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondent No.2. Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with vide order dated 29.08.2025.

¶30

The status of the parties before the Trbiunal is retained for the sake of convenience.

¶31

It is a case of injury, injured claimant filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the evidence on record, granted Rs.4,99,980/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, this appeal is preferred in which it is contended that appellant was tailor and doing coolie work and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month and the disability assessed by the

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15113 MFA No. 5413 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Doctor is 45% to the whole body. But the tribunal has erred in taking the same as 13% and the amounts granted under the other heads is on lower side. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶35

Though it is stated that petitioner was working and earning he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2022, tribunal has rightly taken Rs.15,500/- as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. He was aged 51 years and the multiplier is '11'. Petitioner examined the consultant neurosurgeon and he treated the petitioner and stated that the petitioner was complaining head ache, difficulty in hearing, giddiness, difficulty in going out in day light, impaired memory and irritability and assessed neuro behavioural disability as 41% to the whole body but the Tribunal has taken only 13%.

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondent stated that petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and cross-examined when she gave answers to all the questions and she was doing tailoring and coolie work as she was doing prior to the accident it cannot be said that she cannot pursue her routine work.

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15113 MFA No. 5413 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered 13%. There is no evidence on record to show that she was attending her day to day activity as prior to the accident. Therefore considering the medical evidence, this Court finds it reasonable to take the disability as 25% for the purpose of calculation, as per the citation in MFA No.103807/2016 it was held that if the disability is more than 20% he is entitled for future prospectus at the rate of 10%. The ' loss of future earning capacity' comes to Rs.5,62,650/- (Rs.15,500 + 10% x 12 x 11 x 25%).

¶40

Tribunal has granted Rs.83,000/- towards medical expenses and it is confirmed. He was hospitalized for a period of 7 months considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and other relevant factors, this Court finds it that he might not have attended his normal pursuits atleast for a period of 4 months. Therefore, Rs.62,000/- (Rs.15,500/- x 4) is to be granted under the head ' loss of income during laid up period' and he is also entitled for Rs.30,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges and the amount granted for pain and suffering and loss of amenities is confirmed. The total compensation comes to Rs.8,32,650/-

¶41

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15113 MFA No. 5413 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Thus in all, award of compensation passed by the

¶44

Tribunal is modified as under:

¶45

Particulars Amount
in Rs.
Loss of future earning 5,62,650.00
capacity
Medical Expenses 83,000.00
Loss of income during laid 62,000.00
up period
Transportation, extra 30,000.00
nourishment and
attendant charges
Pain and suffering 50,000.00
Loss of amenities 45,000.00
Total 8,32,650.00

¶46

Hence, the compensation is enhanced from

¶47

Rs.4,99,980/- to Rs.8,32,650/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶48

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i. Appeal is allowed-in-part.

¶51

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:15113 MFA No. 5413 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

ii. The judgment and award dated 10.06.2024 passed in M.V.C.No.1052/2022 by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru is modified;

¶54

iii. The appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,32,670/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization as against Rs.4,99,980/-.

¶55

iv. As the Insurance Company already deposited the awarded amount, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,32,670/- with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum within one month from the date of this order.

¶56

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

¶57

vi. Draw award accordingly.

¶58

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶59

VS

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63

Manjula v. Chiranjeevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjula v. Chiranjeevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Varshini K M Vs Kumaraswamy

Sri. S. Ramesh Vs Sri. K P Jayaram

Mubarak Vs the Manager

Smt. Vidhya @ C P Gayathri Vs Sri Mithun K J

Sri P Vijaykumar Naidu Vs Sri Syed Saheb

R Obaiah @ Obana Vs Basavaraja R