Shri Yashawantha B v Vs Shri Narasimhappa

THE IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD SRI SHANTHI TOWERS 5TH FLOOR, NO 141 3RD MAIN, EAST OF NGEF KASTURINAGAR, BENGALURU 560043 REP BY ITS MANAGER

¶15

RESPONDENTS

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:19445 MFA No. 5942 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

(BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DTD 03.11.2025 NOTICE TO R1 D/W)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.01.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.2049/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-18, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC,.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 22.01.2024 passed in MVC.No.2049/2021 on the file of the learned III Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Bengaluru (SCCH-18), seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶25

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

¶26

The petitioner/injured claimant met with an accident on 17.12.2020 and filed the claim petition before the

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19445 MFA No. 5942 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Tribunal for compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.24,38,415/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed and mainly contended that the petitioner sustained amputation of right leg and drastically reduced his earning capacity. The doctor PW5 assessed the whole body disability as 75%. But the Tribunal has taken the disability as 50%, in fact it is to be taken as 100% disability as he was working as a carpenter and it is further stated that no amount is granted towards future prospects. The Tribunal granted meager amounts under the other heads and interest is to be granted at the higher rate and thus requested for enhancement of compensation.

¶30

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that

¶31

the Tribunal has rightly considered the medical evidence and assessed the disability properly, thus it needs no interference.

¶32

Though the petitioner stated that he was a carpenter and earning Rs.20,000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2020,

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19445 MFA No. 5942 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

his notion income is to be taken as Rs.14,500/- per month, as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. He was aged 20 years and the relevant multiplier is '18'. The doctors examined a PW4 and PW5. PW4 stated that the petitioner sustained closed tromatic right proximal tibia comminuted fracture with impending compartment syndrome with right foot drop. He under went fasciotomy for release of compartment syndrome with ORIF for the right tibia with LCP. Later he under went wound debridement excision of non-viable muscles with SSG for the right leg and advise for follow-up treatment. Once again underwent implant removal and ortho fix with DAC dressing. Thereafter, he was admitted in hospital for non-union of right tibia and later with complaint of nonunion of right proximal of dead bone with primary closure, thereafter admitted with complaint of loss of sensation and unable to dorsiflexion of right ankle where he was diagnosed as post tromatic right leg foot drop with soft tissue contractures with equines deformity and under went ankle orthodesis with IMIL nail, tendo achiles and he was treated conservatively.

¶36

The doctor PW.4 has assessed disability to the right

¶37

lower limb as 75% and the whole body as 25%. PW.5 stated

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19445 MFA No. 5942 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

that he noticed the petitioner under went multiple surgeries in different hospitals and later below knee amputation was done in their hospital and amputation for right knee upper 1/3^rd and assessed whole body disability as 75% and he further stated that he requires artificial limb prosthesis approximate cost of Rs.50,000/- to 1,00,000/-. The Tribunal has taken 50% of the disability to the whole body. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is a carpenter and his whole body disability is to be taken as 100% and relied upon the citation in the case of Moha. Sabeer V.s Regional Manager U.P State

¶41

Road Transport Corporation¹ . Considering the medical evidence and the fact that he has under gone amputation of right knee upper 1/3^rd , this Court finds reasonable to take the disability as 75% for the purpose of calculation. The petitioner was aged 19 years, therefore he is entitled for 40% towards future prospects. Loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.14,500/- + 40% X 12 X 18 X 75% =Rs.32,88,600/-.

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon

¶43

the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.

¶44

1 2023 ACJ 1

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:19445 MFA No. 5942 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Ettiappan V.s D. Kumar and another² in which it held as

¶49

follows:

¶50

"On account of accidental injuries sustained, right leg of appellant came to be amputated below the knee and thereby he would not be in a position to even stand without support or in other words, his avocation as a labourer or loader had come to a standstill."

¶51

The Tribunal has granted Rs.3,75,415/- towards

¶52

medical expenses which is just and proper. The petitioner was an inpatient for a period of 80 days i.e., more than 2.5 months, considering the nature of injuries and period of hospitalization this Court finds to award Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal has granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.60,000/- towards attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges, which are just and proper. This Court finds to grant an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards marriage prospects and Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medical expenses.

¶53

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is

¶54

as below:

¶55

2 SLP.No.15621/2025

¶56

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:19445 MFA No. 5942 of 2024

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1.	Towards pain and suffering	1,00,000/-
2.	Medical expenses	3,75,415/-
3.	Future medical expenses	1,00,000/-
4.	Towards loss of amenities	1,00,000/-/-
5.	Towards food, nourishment and attendant charges	60,000/-
6.	Towards loss of income during laid up period	87,000/-
7.	Towards loss of future earning capacity	32,88,600/-
8.	Marriage prospects	3,00,000/-
	Total	44,11,015/-

¶59

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total

¶60

compensation of Rs.44,11,015/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The appellant is not entitled for any interest under the heads of marriage prospects and future medical expenses.

¶61

11. In the result, the following order is passed:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶64

ii. The judgment and award dated 22.01.2024 passed in MVC.No.2049/2021 on the file of the learned III Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Bengaluru (SCCH-18), is modified.

¶65

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:19445 MFA No. 5942 of 2024

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of

¶68

Rs.44,11,015/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.24,38,415/- granted by the Tribunal.

¶69

iv. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company has already

¶70

deposited the award amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.19,72,600/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order (the appellant/claimant is not entitled for any interest, for the amount granted under the heads of marriage prospects and future medical expenses).

¶71

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

¶72

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶73

PNV - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75

Shri Yashawantha B v. Vs Shri Narasimhappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Yashawantha B v. Vs Shri Narasimhappa

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

Sri. Kumarswamy Vs Sri. Dileep v

M S Kiran Vs Naveen R

Sri K Hari Prasad Vs Smt Manjula

Srinivasaiah Govindaraju Vs Ravikumar H v @ Ravikumar Hadinaru Venkataswamaiah

Darshini B K Vs Guruprasad D v

Kamala Devi Vs the Manager