Sri. G. v. Varadaraju Vs M/S United India Insurance

SRI. G. V. VARADARAJU S/O VEERACHAR (LATE) AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT C/O KESHAVA MURTHY 3RD CROSS VINAYAKA NAGAR RAMOHALLI MAIN ROAD RAMOHALLI P.O, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH (PRESENT ADRESS)

¶10

R/AT NO 3A, 7TH CROSS SANJEEVNINI NAGAR, MODDALAPALYA NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU - 560072.

¶11

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

APPELLANT (BY SMT. SRIVIDYA G.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T.N VISWANATHA)

¶13

AND:

¶14

M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD T P CLAIMS HUB 5TH AND 6TH FLOORS KRUSHI BHAVAN HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.

¶15

SRI SAILESH K RAMANI S/O SRI KANJIBAN DUGALBAI RAMANI

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27956 MFA No. 7656 of 2015

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

MAJOR R/AT NO 781 4TH CROSS NGOS COLONY KAMALANAGAR BENGALURU - 560079.

¶19

SMT DIMPAL V BHAKHAI W/O VIPUT R BHAKHAI R/AT NO 25/26 59TH CROSS 5TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560010.

¶20

RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. Y.P VENKATAPATHI.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DTD 01.07.2021 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W;

¶22

R3 IS SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.6.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.2671/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC,.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 29.06.2015 passed in MVC.No.2671/2014 on the file of the learned III Additional

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:27956 MFA No. 7656 of 2015

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-18), seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶32

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1/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 08.06.2014 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.4,17,000/with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from date of petition till deposit. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an appeal and mainly contended that, he sustained grievous injuries and was admitted in the hospital for a period of 17 days. The Doctor assessed disability of 15% to the whole body. The Tribunal ought to have granted 8 months towards laid up period and he was doing welding and fabrication work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but the Tribunal had taken his income as Rs.6,000/- per month. Inadequate amount was granted for future medical expenses. He requires one more surgery and the

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:27956 MFA No. 7656 of 2015

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

estimated cost of the same is Rs.40,000/- to Rs.45,000/-.

¶37

Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation

¶38

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that

¶39

Tribunal has already considered all the aspects and granted reasonable compensation and it is to be confirmed.

¶40

Though the petitioner stated that he was aged 52 years, working as a welder and fabricator under contractor and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2014, this Court finds it reasonable to take his notional income as Rs.8,500/per month as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. He was aged 52 years and the relevant multiplier is '11'. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate and Exs.P7 and P8 are the discharge summaries, apart from that petitioner also examined the doctor as PW.2, he is an Orthopedic surgeon. PW.2 stated that petitioner sustained swelling and deformity of left leg with bleeding (compound type II comminuted fracture of both boned of left leg. Lacerated bleeding wound over the anterior aspect of both legs. Wound debridement and condylar buttress plate and screw fixation for

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:27956 MFA No. 7656 of 2015

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

U/3^rd shaft of tibia and primary suturing of the wounds under spinal anesthesia along with antibiotic injection. There was a fracture of tibia with broken implants in situ. He was readmitted on 29.09.2014 and operated again for removal of broken implants and fracture was fixed with locking plate and screws along with regular post operative treatment and medications, and discharged on 06.10.2014 with advice for regular follow up treatment and physiotherapy. The doctor examined the left limb of the claimant and noted findings as operative scars are seen over the left knee and leg. Deformity and wasting of left quadriceps muscles noted. Flexion of knee restricted to 110 degrees. Extension of Knee restricted to 10 Degree. Plantar flexion of ankle restricted to 10 degrees on left side. Left sided limp noted. Left lower limb shortening noted by 2 cms. Check X-ray of left leg reveals progressive union of U/3^rd fracture with thickening of shaft of tibia and angulation of fibula and implants are in situ. The petitioner required implant removal surgery in about one to two years and the cost of the removal would be approximately Rs.40,000/- to Rs.45,000/-.

¶44

The Tribunal considering medical evidence on

¶45

record, rightly taken the disability as 15% and this Court finds

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:27956 MFA No. 7656 of 2015

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.8,500/- X 12 X 11 X 15% =Rs.1,68,300/. The claimant was admitted in the hospital for a period of 17 days and the Tribunal has granted Rs.1,45,000/towards medical expenses, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said amount and the same is confirmed. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and other relevant factors the Tribunal has already granted an amount of Rs.55,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/towards loss of amenities and Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses and the said amounts are confirmed. The claimant is entitled for Rs.30,000/- towards food, nourishment, attendant charges and transportation. The claimant might not have attended any work at least for a period of four months, therefore, he is entitled for an amount of Rs.34,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period.

¶49

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is

¶50

as below:

¶51

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:27956 MFA No. 7656 of 2015

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1.	Towards pain and suffering	55,000/-
2.	Medical expenses	1,45,000/-
3.	Future medical expenses	25,000/-
4.	Towards loss of amenities	25,000/-
5.	Towards food, nourishment, attendant charges and transportation	30,000/-
6.	Towards loss of income during laid up period	34,000/-
7.	Towards loss of future earning capacity	1,68,300/-
	Total	4,82,300/-

¶54

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total

¶55

compensation of Rs.4,82,300/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶56

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶59

ii. The judgment and award dated 29.06.2015 passed in MVC.No.2671/2014 on the file of the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-18), is modified.

¶60

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,82,300/-

¶61

along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of

¶62

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:27956 MFA No. 7656 of 2015

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.4,17,000- /- granted by the tribunal.

¶65

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.65,300/- along with the interest at the rate of

¶66

6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶67

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

¶68

vi. Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court records.

¶69

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶70

PNV

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Sri. G. v. Varadaraju v M/S United India Insurance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. G. v. Varadaraju v M/S United India Insurance

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

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Shulapani S K

Smt Rangamma Vs Sri Madhu K T @ Madhusudan

Smt Amrutha Vs Sri Udaya Shivakumar

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Venkataramu

Sri. Manjunath Vs the Manager

Sri. K. Raghuram Vs Branch Manager