Sri K Jafar Sadique Vs Sri Manjunatha K Naik

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:23160 MFA No. 7180 of 2018

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7180 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI K JAFAR SADIQUE, S/O. ABDUL KHADAR K, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: MECHANIC, R/AT NO. 559, 8^TH CROSS, SUBHASH NAGAR, NEAR GANESH TEMPLE, AUTOSHED SINGASANDRA, BANGALORE 560 068.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI SURESH M LATUR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI MANJUNATHA K NAIK, S/O. KRISHNA NAIK, NO. 190, MUNIREDDY BUILDING, BEGUR MAIN ROAD, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, HONGASANDRA, BANGALORE 560 068.

¶14

THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, 5^TH AND 6^TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALROE 560 001

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI S.V HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; V/O DATED 18.10.2022, NOTICE TO R-1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:23160 MFA No. 7180 of 2018

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03/04/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.2249/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXXIV ACMM., COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by the injured challenging the

¶24

judgment and award dated 03.04.2018 passed in MVC

¶25

No.2249 of 2017 by the MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-7) (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

¶26

Sri.Suresh M. Lathur, learned counsel appearing

¶27

for the appellant, submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in assessing the income as well as the disability, by ignoring the oral evidence of the injured– PW1, his employer–PW4, and the doctor–PW3. The said witnesses have consistently stated before the Tribunal that the injured was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20% to the

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:23160 MFA No. 7180 of 2018

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

whole body. However, the Tribunal has erroneously assessed the income at Rs.9,000/- per month and the disability at 10%, which is contrary to the evidence on record. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any compensation under the head of loss of amenities and has been awarded meagre compensation under the other heads.

¶31

Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that PW4 has deposed before the Tribunal regarding the employment of the injured and his income. However, the said oral evidence is not supported by any documentary evidence to establish that the injured was working as a mechanic under him and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. In the absence of such corroborative evidence, the testimony of PW1 cannot be accepted. Hence, the assessment of income made by the Tribunal is right.

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:23160 MFA No. 7180 of 2018

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

It is further submitted that the Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the evidence of PW3 and has recorded detailed reasons for assessing the disability at 10%. The said assessment is in consonance with the evidence on record as well as the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all other heads is just and proper. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the appeal.

¶35

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for

¶36

the appellants and learned counsel for respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶37

The material on record indicates that the appellant

¶38

met with a road accident on 25.02.2017 and sustained fractures of both bones of the right leg soft injury of the left leg. He was taken to the hospital, where he underwent treatment and remained as an inpatient for a period of 9 days, during which surgery was performed for the fracture injuries. In order to prove the income and disability, the injured himself was examined as PW1 and three other

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:23160 MFA No. 7180 of 2018

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

witnesses were examined as PW2 to PW4, and documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P22 were produced. The respondent did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal. In order to prove his income, it is asserted that the injured was working as a mechanic under PW4–Rahim Khan. The said averment made in the claim petition is corroborated by the evidence of PW4 with regard to the nature of occupation of the injured.

¶42

However, in order to prove the income, the appellant has failed to produce any cogent evidence which inspires the confidence of this Court to accept the claim of income at Rs.15,000/- per month. In the absence of proof of income and considering the oral evidence of PW1injured as well as PW4-employer, this Court is of the considered view that the income of the injured, whose avocation as a mechanic stands established, is required to be assessed at Rs.12,000/- per month. In order to prove

¶43

the disability, the appellant examined

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:23160 MFA No. 7180 of 2018

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Dr.S.A. Somashekar, who has assessed the disability at

¶47

40% to a particular limb and 20% to the whole body.

¶48

The Tribunal, at paragraph 15, has assigned

¶49

reasons and concluded that the disability is required to be taken at 10%. Having regard to the fact that the appellant had sustained two fractures, undergone surgery, and taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 9 days, and also considering his age and nature of avocation, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the disability is assessed at 13% to the whole body. Having thus reassessed the income and disability, I am of the considered view that the compensation under other heads also requires suitable enhancement by awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities. Hence the compensation is reassessed as under;

¶50

HEADS	AMOUNT
	(in Rs.)
For pain and sufferings, mental agony	50,000.00
Actual Medical Expenses	52,085.00

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:23160 MFA No. 7180 of 2018

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Food & nourishment and convenience	25,000.00
Loss of future income due to disability (Rs.12,000x12x18x13%)	3,36,960.00
Future Medical expenses	20,000.00
Loss of amenities	50,000.00
Loss of income during laid up period (Rs.12,000/- x 3)	36,000.00
Total	5,70,045.00

¶55

Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a

¶56

total compensation of Rs.5,70,045/- as against

¶57

Rs.3,44,485/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶58

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶59

following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶62

b) The impugned judgment and award dated 03.04.2018 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.2249/2017 is modified to an extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.5,70,045/- as against Rs.3,44,485/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶63

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:23160 MFA No. 7180 of 2018

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

c) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.

¶66

d) The respondent-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 the certified copy of this judgment.

¶67

e) The rest of the judgment and award of the Tribunal with respect to apportionment, deposit and release shall remain unaltered.

¶68

f) Registry to transmit the records back to the Tribunal.

¶69

g) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶70

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶71

SR

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Sri K Jafar Sadique v. Sri Manjunatha K Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K Jafar Sadique v. Sri Manjunatha K Naik

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. Veerabhadrappa Vs Sri Shylesh Kumar Singh

Appannagowda @ Appannigowda Vs the Divisional Controller

Divakar M D Vs Lingaraju

Sri Vedavyas Kamath Vs Mr B Sunil Bajilkeri @ Sunil Shettigar

The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Paramesha L

Sri Mayanna Vs Sri Thimmaraju