Sri Ananda Vs Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd.

SRI. V. RAVICHANDRA S/O. VENKATARAMAIAH, MAJOR, AGED OF R-2 NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANT, R/O. CHELLAPURA, EDIGARAHATTI, KELLANGERE, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:22556 MFA No. 7146 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY. NA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶20

V/O DTD 02.04.2025 NOTICE TO R2 D/W)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.06.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.2242/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL SCJ AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-26 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC,.

¶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 28.06.2024 passed in MVC.No.2242/2021 on the file of the learned XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and ACMM, (SCCH-26), Bengaluru, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:22556 MFA No. 7146 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

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.

¶30

The petitioner/injured claimant met with an accident on 12.03.2021 and filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.10,60,472/- 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 have sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted in the hospital as an inpatient for a period of 25 days. He examined the doctor and the doctor assessed the disability of lower limb as 70% and 100% functional disability to be taken and he is also entitled for Rs.3,00,000/- lakhs towards prosthetic limb and it is to be replaced for every 3 years. He was aged 38 years as per the Aadhar card and is doing agriculture, sericulture, milk vending business and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. The Tribunal granted meager amounts under the other heads and interest is to be granted at

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:22556 MFA No. 7146 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

the higher rate and thus requested for enhancement of compensation.

¶34

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 stated that the doctor assessed the right lower limb disability has 70% and the whole body disability as 35%. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered the disability as 30% and granted reasonable amounts under the other heads and it is to be confirmed.

¶35

Though the petitioner stated that he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, but he has not filed any income proof. As he met with the accident in the year 2021, this Court finds it reasonable to take his notional income as Rs.15,000/- per month as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. He is aged 38 years and the relevant multiplier is '15'. He filed Exs.P7 and 8 - wound certificate, Ex.P10 - discharge summary and also other relevant medical reports. Apart from that, he also examined the doctor as PW.2/ orthopedics professor and he stated that the petition sustained compound fracture dislocation of right ankle with vascular injury. X- ray of the part was taken, wound debridement and external fixator application was done on the same day

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:22556 MFA No. 7146 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

13.03.2021. Since the limb was not viable, hence below knee amputation was done on 23.03.2021. Then on 01.04.2021 under special Anaesthesia stump closure was done and the patient was discharged from the hospital on 06.04.2021. Below knee amputation of right lower limb at the junction of upper

¶39

1/3 amounts to 70% and to the whole body is 70/2 =35%.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the citation in the case of Mohd. Sabeer V.s Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation¹ which reads as under:

¶41

"16. The appellant herein has suffered permanent disability of 70 percent and has an amputated right lower limb amongst other injuries. The High Court has wrongly taken the view that the appellant has suffered only 35 percent functional disability. The appellant is not a salaried person but is self-employed who manages his business. For the appellant to be able to augment his income, he is most definitely required to move around. The appellant can also not drive on his own, which hinders his mobility further. This proves that the functional disability of the appellant will severely impact his earning capacity, and the 35 percent functional disability calculated by the High Court is incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the case and in our view the loss of future earning capacity must be calculated at 60 percent."

¶42

1 2023 ACJ I

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:22556 MFA No. 7146 of 2024

¶44

6 -

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, it is

¶47

the case of below knee amputation, even in the schedule the percentage of disability is assessed as 60%. This Court finds it appropriate to take the disability as 35% based on the medical evidence. As the disability is more than 20% he is entitled for future prospects as per the citation in the case of New India

¶48

Assurance Company Limited V.s Abdul S/o Mehaboob

¶49

Tahsildar² , and the petitioner is aged 38 years and therefore, he is entitled for 40% towards future prospects. So loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.15,000/- + 40% X 12 X 15 X 35% =Rs.13,23,000/-. The Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.80,472/- towards medical expense and the said amount is confirmed. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization, his age and occupation, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.1,00,000/- pain and suffering and Rs.60,000/towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. The petitioner might not have attended any work for 6 months hence he is entitled for Rs.90,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period.

¶50

2 MFA.Nos.103807/2016 C/w 103835/2016

¶51

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:22556 MFA No. 7146 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is

¶54

as below:

¶55

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1.	Loss of future earning capacity	13,23,000/-
2.	Medical expenses	80,472/-
3.	Pain and suffering	1,00,000/-
4.	Towards loss of amenities	1,00,000/-
5.	Towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges	60,000/-
6.	Loss of income during laid up period	90,000/-
	Total	17,53,472/-

¶56

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total

¶57

compensation of Rs.17,53,472/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶58

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶61

ii. The judgment and award dated 28.06.2024 passed

¶62

in MVC.No.2242/2021 on the file of the learned XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and ACMM, (SCCH-26), Bengaluru, is modified.

¶63

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:22556 MFA No. 7146 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of

¶66

Rs.17,53,472/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.10,60,472/- granted by the tribunal.

¶67

iv. Respondent No.1/Insurance Company has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent No.1/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.6,93,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶68

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

¶69

vi. Registry is directed to transmit the Tribunal records forthwith.

¶70

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶71

PNV - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Sri Ananda v. Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ananda v. Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd.

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

Kumara Vs Gangadharappa

Sunil H.N. Vs Narasimhamurthy P.H.

Sri K Puneeth @ Sidderaje Urs Vs Smt M N Vidya Urs @ Kempammanni

Smt. Kanchana M C Vs Sri Gajendra M

Smt. Jayalakshmi M Vs Sri Nagaraj B S

Kum Soundarya M Vs Sri N Ravi Kumar