M Hari Vs Malleswari C K

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.04.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO. 7724/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-18), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the common judgment and award dated 22.04.2025 passed in MVC.No.7724/2023 on the file of the learned III Additional Judge and Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-18), seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19444 MFA No. 7131 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

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.

¶33

The petitioner/injured claimant met with an accident on 14.06.2023 and filed petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.5,91,354/- 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 appellant was doing agricultural work and earning more than Rs.40,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has erred in taking his income as Rs.16,000/- per month. The petitioner also examined doctor as PW.3 and he assessed the total disability of the left lower limb as 40% and whole body as 20%. But the Tribunal has taken the disability as 13%. 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.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:19444 MFA No. 7131 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Though the petitioner stated that he was earning the Rs.40,000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2023, the Tribunal has rightly considered his notional income as Rs.16,000/- per month as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, hence, it needs no interference. Ex.P10 is the wound certificate Ex.P11 is the medical bills and also examined the doctor as PW3, he is an orthopedic surgeon. He stated that the petitioner sustained closed comminuted fracture proximal tibia left with impending compartment syndrome. He under went ORIF with proximal tibial plaiting under SA, he complains of pain and difficulty in walking and climbing stairs, inability to squat and sit cross legged. On examination it shows that pain and limping while walks, wasting of left lower limb, anterior drawer's test is positive, surgical scars are seen over left knee and proximal leg, recent X-ray shows united fracture proximal tibia left implant in situ. The total disability of the left leg is 40% and the whole body is 20%. He further stated that the petitioner requires another surgery for removal of implant which would cost around Rs.40,000/- and he also stated that as the petitioner is an agriculturist, disability comes in the way of

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19444 MFA No. 7131 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

his working. Therefore, this Court finds reasonable to take the disability as 1/3^rd in 40% i.e., 13%. The Tribunal has rightly considered 13% disability and it is confirmed. The petitioner was aged 30 years, the appropriate multiplier would be '17'. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for loss for earning capacity which come to 16,000/- X 12 X 17 X 13% =Rs.4,24,320/-. The Tribunal has granted Rs.10,034/- towards medical expenses which is confirmed. The claimant was in an inpatient for four days, therefore, considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/towards loss of amenities and Rs.30,000/- for transportation, food nourishment and attendant charges. The claimant might not have attended an work at lest for a period of three months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for income during laid up period is 16,000/- X 3 =Rs.48,000/-. The Tribunal has granted Rs.30,000/towards future medical expenses which is confirmed.

¶41

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is as below:

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:19444 MFA No. 7131 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1.	Towards pain and suffering	60,000/-
2.	Medical expenses	10,034/-
3.	Future medical expenses	30,000/-
4.	Towards loss of amenities	30,000/-
5.	Towards food, nourishment and attendant charges	30,000/-
6.	Towards loss of income during laid up period	48,000/-
7.	Towards loss of future earning capacity	4,24,320/-
	Total	6,32,354/-

¶45

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total

¶46

compensation of Rs.6,32,354/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶47

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶50

ii. The judgment and award dated 22.04.2025 passed in MVC.No.7724/2023 on the file of the learned III Additional Judge and Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-18), is modified.

¶51

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:19444 MFA No. 7131 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum Rs.6,32,354/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.5,91,354/- granted by the tribunal.

¶54

iv. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.41,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶55

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

¶56

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶57

PNV - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58

M Hari v. Malleswari C K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Hari v. Malleswari C K

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

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

Shri Yashawantha B v Vs Shri Narasimhappa