Sri. Veerabhadrappa Vs Sri Shylesh Kumar Singh

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.861/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SCJ & MACT, BENGALURU [SCCH-17] PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is by the injured appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 26.06.2018 passed in MVC.No.861/2017 by the XIX Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, MACT, Bangalore

¶25

(SCCH-17) (for short 'the Tribunal').

¶26

Sri.Suresh M. Latur, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the assessment of income of the appellant by the Tribunal is contrary to Ex.P11, the salary certificate, which indicates that the appellant was earning Rs.16,000/- per month. It is submitted that the doctor has assessed the disability at 43.9%; however, the Tribunal has incorrectly assessed the disability at 14% and

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:23199 M.F.A. No.7167/2018

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

awarded meagre compensation by ignoring the evidence on record. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

¶30

Sri.B.Pradeep, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and award and submits that although proof of income was produced, it was not proved before the Tribunal in the absence of corroborative evidence. It is submitted that the appellant sustained fractures of tibia and fibula and those fractures were also united, as is evident from the cross-examination of PW3. Therefore, assessment of disability and the award of compensation by the Tribunal are just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶31

I have heard the arguments on both the sides

¶32

and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶33

It is not in dispute that the appellant met with a road accident on 30.12.2016 and sustained fractures of the right tibia and fibula, as is evident from the oral

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:23199 M.F.A. No.7167/2018

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

evidence of PW3 and the documentary evidence at Ex.P9, the wound certificate and Ex.P10, the discharge summary. In order to prove the income, the appellant has produced Ex.P11, the salary certificate, Ex.P17, the bank account statement and Ex.P18, the authorization letter. The Tribunal, considering these materials, has rightly assessed the income of the appellant at Rs.12,000/- per month. The contention that the income should be taken as Rs.16,000/per month cannot be accepted, as the appellant neither examined his employer nor placed any material to indicate that Rs.16,000/- was regularly credited to his account every month. In the absence of such evidence, the assessment of income by the Tribunal is correct. The Tribunal, taking note of the oral evidence of PW3, the disability certificate and the wound certificate has assessed the disability at 14%. However, taking note of the fact that the appellant was hospitalized as an inpatient for a period of 31 days, sustained two fractures as noted above, and considering the oral evidence of PW3, who assessed the

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:23199 M.F.A. No.7167/2018

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

disability at 43.9% to a particular limb and 22% to the whole body, I am of the considered view that it would be appropriate to reassess the disability at 17% to the whole body for the purpose of determination of compensation. It is not in dispute that the claimant was aged about 57 years at the time of the accident; hence, the appropriate multiplier would be 9, which has been rightly considered by the Tribunal. Having reassessed the disability of the appellant/claimant, the appellant/claimant is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability as under:

¶40

12,000/- x 12 x 9 x 17% = Rs.2,20,320/-

¶41

The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the heads of Food, nourishment, attendant charges & conveyance, medical expenses and future medical expenses remains unaltered. However, having reassessed the disability and taking note of the oral and documentary evidence, I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads

¶42

6 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:23199 M.F.A. No.7167/2018

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

is required to be reassessed by appropriately enhancing

¶46

the same. The appellant is entitled to the modified compensation as under:

¶47

HEADS	AMOUNT (in Rs.)
Pain & suffering	60,000
Loss of amenities	50,000
Medical expenses	36,671
Loss of income during laid-up period	48,000
(Rs.12,000 X 4)
Loss of future income due to disability	2,20,320
Towards conveyance, attendant charges,	40,000
food and nourishment
Future Medical expenses	25,000
Total	4,79,991

¶48

Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to total

¶49

compensation of Rs. 4,79,991 /- as against Rs.3,94,111/-

¶50

awarded by the Tribunal.

¶51

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶52

following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

a) Appeal stands allowed in part .

¶55

b) The impugned judgment and award of the

¶56

Tribunal is modified to an extent that the

¶57

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:23199 M.F.A. No.7167/2018

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

appellant-claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 4,79,991 /- as against

¶60

Rs.3,94,111/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶61

c) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.

¶62

d) The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶63

e) On such deposit, the Tribunal shall release the entire enhanced compensation amount in favour of the appellant.

¶64

f) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶65

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶66

ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Sri. Veerabhadrappa v. Sri Shylesh Kumar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Veerabhadrappa v. Sri Shylesh Kumar Singh

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

K Krishna Shety Vs Sri K Raghavendra Nayak

Smt. Rajeevi Vs Sri. Vinith Kumar K N

Lakshmaiah Vs Smt. Balamma

Sri Anjani Rao H Vs the Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd.

Smt. Shobha Channabasavaiah Vs M/S S v S Food Crafts

Mr. Abbubakkar Siddiq @ Abbubakkar Vs Sri. Y. C. Nataraj