Sri Shayama Badal Vs Raja Noor Mohammed

RAJA NOOR MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O. NOOR MOHAMMED, R/O.B-201, GREEN FIELD, OPP: FANTACY LAND, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA STATE - 550 111.

¶16

SHAJI POKKILAM (SINCE DECEASED), WAHEEDA (37 YEARS), LEGAL HEIR AND WIFE OF THE DECEASED, MR. SHAJI K.M., R/O.NO.22/60,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:8046 MFA No. 7227 of 2016

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

NEAR POWER HOUSE, VENNAKARA, PALAKKAD, KERALA STATE - 543 211.

¶20

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH RATHNAGIRI, BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SRI RAM ARCADE, OPP. HEAD POST OFFICE, UDUPI - 576 101.

¶21

SRIKANTH BADAL

¶22

S/O.RAMESH BADAL, PUSHPANJALI TALKIES ROAD, BHATKAL, N.K. DISTRICT - 576 651.

¶23

THE BRANCH MANAGER THE IPFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 3^RD FLOOR, LAL BAGH, M.G.ROAD, MANGALORE - 572 012.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI.S.V. HEDGE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R5; VIDE ORDER DATED 14.11.2017 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH

¶26

VIDE ORDER DATED 17.09.2019 NOTICE TO R2 & R4 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

¶27

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.02.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1242/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, UDUPI DISTRICT AND ETC.,

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:8046 MFA No. 7227 of 2016

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

The Tribunal has passed the common award in MVC Nos.1240/2009 and 1242/2009 dated 06.02.2014 and this

¶35

appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 06.02.2014 passed in MVC No.1242/2009, by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kundapura, for enhancing the compensation.

¶36

Heard the arguments of both the learned

¶37

counsel.

¶38

The appellant/injured claimant met with an accident on 21.05.2009 and filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,75,000/-. The Tribunal has considered the entire evidence on record and granted an amount of Rs.6,66,220/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of petition till realization.

¶39

Aggrieved by the said award, he preferred the

¶40

present appeal mainly contending that respondent No.1

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:8046 MFA No. 7227 of 2016

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

remained ex- parte and respondent No.2 died and his wife was impleaded, but she has not filed written statement. Appellant sustained grievous injuries, he spent Rs.1,00,000/- for medical expenses, but the Tribunal granted meager amounts under the other heads. He is working as a Maintenance Engineer at Beloorbayir Biotech Ltd., (Unit-II) and is getting a salary of Rs.15,000/- p.m., but the Tribunal has taken his income as Rs.10,000/-. Thus, he requested for enhancement of compensation.

¶44

Learned counsel for the respondent/insurer contended that the Tribunal has considered all the aspects and has rightly taken the income and also disability, and has rightly granted the amounts under all the heads. Thus, he requested this Court to dismiss the appeal.

¶45

Appellant examined the employer as PW.2 and

¶46

Exs.P6, P7, P8, P11 and P12 are also filed by him. As per the salary certificate, he was getting a salary of Rs.12,000/- plus allowance. The Tribunal considering the

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8046 MFA No. 7227 of 2016

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

other documents held that he was working as a Maintenance Engineer in the said company, and as per the payslip, he was getting a salary of Rs.11,441/- for the month of November 2009. Accident occurred in May 2009 and as per Ex.P11 he was getting a salary of Rs.12,000/p.m. There is no consistent evidence by PW.1 and PW.2 and thus taken his income as Rs.10,000/p.m. Admittedly, he was working as a Maintenance Engineer as per the above relevant documents and he has also examined the employer, therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to take his income as Rs.12,000/- per month. The appellant was aged 38 years as per the medical records and the multiplier to be applied is ' 15' .

¶50

The appellant sustained fracture of left distal radius, left branchial plexus injury, 4 X 3 X 1 cm laceration over right knee, multiple laceration over the face as per Ex.P4 wound certificate. He also examined PW.3- the Associate Professor of Orthopedics and he assessed the disability as 64%. In the cross-examination, PW.2 has

¶51

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:8046 MFA No. 7227 of 2016

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

stated that he sustained whole body disability as 32%. This Court finds it reasonable to take the disability at 1/3^rd of 64%, which would be 21% . As the disability is above 20%, he is also entitled for future prospects of 40% . Thus, the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.6,35,040/- (Rs.12,000+40%X12X15X21%).

¶54

The award of Rs.26,220/- towards medical

¶55

expenses by the Tribunal being based on medical records, it is confirmed.

¶56

Considering the nature of injuries and period of hospitalization, which is 13 days and other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.60,000/- as against Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering and to award amount of Rs.30,000/- as against Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities.

¶57

The appellant might not have attended any other work at least for a period of 4 months having regard to the injuries suffered by him. Therefore, he is entitled to

¶58

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:8046 MFA No. 7227 of 2016

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Rs.48,000/- (Rs.12,000/- X 4 months) towards loss of income during the laid up period. He is also entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment and attending charges.

¶61

Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and the claimant would be entitled to the following compensation:

¶62

Sl. No.	Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal	As awarded by this Court
		(Rs.)	(Rs.)
1.	Pain and Sufferings	40,000	60,000
2.	Medical expenses	26,220	26,220
3.	Transportation, attendant and nourishment expenses	---	40,000
4.	Loss of earnings during the period of treatment	40,000	48,000
5.	Loss of future earnings due to disability	5,49,000	6,35,040
6.	Loss of amenities of life	20,000	30,000
	Total	6,66,220	8,39,260

¶63

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:8046 MFA No. 7227 of 2016

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.8,39,260/- as against Rs.6,66,220/awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶66

The insurance company has already deposited the amount awarded before the Tribunal. Hence, respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,73,040/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within a period of one month from the date of this order.

¶67

On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it.

¶68

SD/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶69

CR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 87

Sri Shayama Badal v. Raja Noor Mohammed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shayama Badal v. Raja Noor Mohammed

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

Chaitra Vs Girish Chunchan S

Shek Mohamod Gouse Vs Reliance General Assurance Co. Ltd.

Sri Rathnappa Vs Sri Shantha Kumar

Smt. Nikhitha M N Vs Shri. Sharanesh Aradhya M

Devendra R Vs Pradeep Kumar

Bhagyamma Vs Nagaraja E C