Mr Narayanaswamy G N Vs Mr Gunashekar T

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT. 26.02.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO. 61/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH.13), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 26.02.2024 passed in MVC No.61/2023 on the file of the II Additional Judge and ACMM, Court Of Small Causes, MACT, Bengaluru , for enhancing the compensation.

¶27

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶28

The injured claimant met with an accident on 13.11.2022 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:20551 MFA No. 7789 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal considered the entire evidence on record, granted an amount Rs.10,21,400/-.

¶33

Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an appeal and mainly contended that the Tribunal granted meager amounts. He sustained fracture injuries which are grievous in nature. But the Tribunal granted meager amounts under the other heads. PW3 doctor assessed the disability of right lower limb as 44% and 22% to the whole body. But the Tribunal erred in taking the same as 15%. He was doing agricultural work and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has taken meager income of Rs.15,500/- and thus requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶34

Though petitioner stated that he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2022, Tribunal has rightly considered the notional income of Rs.15,500/-. As per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. He was aged 35 years and the multiplier taken is 16. Ex.P8 is the wound certificate. Ex.P10 is the discharge summaries.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:20551 MFA No. 7789 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Petitioner also examined doctor as PW3, an orthopedic surgeon

¶39

and he stated that petitioner sustained following injuries,

¶40

Fracture of 2^nd to 4^th metatarsal bone fracture

¶41

Right,

¶42

Talonavicular and Calcaneonavicular dislocation

¶43

with traumatic ulcer over Right foot.

¶44

He took following treatment External fixation

¶45

Extensor tendon repair and myocutaneous flap, Later underwent removal of external fixator, internal fixation and skin grafting.

¶46

He complained of pain Right foot and Ankle

¶47

difficulty to squat on floor, climb upstairs, walk on slope stand on affected limb, difficulty to do Routine Activities, Deformity of ankle and foot he needs support to walk.

¶48

It was found that there was restriction of joint

¶49

movement of Right ankle plantardorsi flexion 60º normal 0.70º difficulty to squat on floor, climb upstairs, walk on slope, and on affected limb Deformity of Right ankle walk 3 with help of orthotics.

¶50

On Radiological Examination shows Fracture

¶51

united dislocation reduced with implant in situ.

¶52

The doctor further recommended the need for

¶53

one more surgery for removal of implant.

¶54

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20551 MFA No. 7789 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

The doctor assessed the permanent physical disability of 44% to the right lower limb and 22% to the whole body and further stated that he requires another surgery for removal of the implants. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he has not treated the petitioner and he has not seen the copies of the discharge summary. He further stated that petitioner was treated by plastic surgeon after the treatment of the orthopedic surgeon and external fixation was removed and internal fixation is still in situ and it is to be removed. Fracture is united. There are fractures of 3 metatarsal. He has restriction of ankle movement. But there is no ankle fracture. Tribunal has rightly constructed 1/3^rd of 44% that is 15% disability and it is confirmed. Hence, the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.15,500 x 12 x 16 x 15% = Rs.4,46,400/- . As per Ex.P11, the Tribunal granted Rs.3,17,000/- towards medical expenses and it is confirmed. Learned counsel for petitioner stated that he was admitted in the hospital for a period of 73 days on different spells. Hence, considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalisation and other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.75,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities . The Tribunal

¶57

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:20551 MFA No. 7789 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

already granted Rs.75,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges and it is confirmed. The petitioner might not have attended any work atleast for a period of 6 months therefore, Rs.15,500 x 6 = Rs.93,000/- for loss of income during laid up period and the said amounts are confirmed. Further, this court finds it reasonable to grant future medical expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

¶60

Thus in all, components awarded by this court are as below,

¶61

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1	Loss of future income	4,46,400
2	Pain and suffering	75,000
3	Loss of amenities	50,000
4	Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges.	75,000
5	Loss of income during laid down period	93,000
6	Future medical expenses	15,000
7	Medical bills	3,17,000
	Total	10,71,400

¶62

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:20551 MFA No. 7789 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

Hence, the compensation granted by tribunal is enhanced from Rs.10,21,400/- to Rs.10,71,400 /- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶65

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶68

ii. The judgment and award dated 26.02.2024 passed in MVC No.61/2023 on the file of the II Additional Judge and ACMM, Court Of Small Causes, MACT, Bengaluru, is modified.

¶69

iii. The claimants are entitled to a sum of

¶70

Rs.10,71,400/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.10,21,400/- granted by the tribunal.

¶71

iv. Respondent/Insurance Company has already deposited the awarded amount before the tribunal. Therefore, respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced

¶72

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:20551 MFA No. 7789 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶75

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

¶76

vi. On 19.01.2026, the delay of 121 days is condoned by this Court on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest in case of enhancement. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interest for the delayed period.

¶77

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶78

AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56

Mr Narayanaswamy G N v. Mr Gunashekar T

Case brief

What is this about?

Mr Narayanaswamy G N v. Mr Gunashekar T

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

Smt. Pavithra K .P Vs Mr.Ananda K.C.

Smt. Shilpa Vs Kumar D.

Moose Kunhi Beary Vs Mahammad Azaruddeen

Smt. Ramya v Vs Sri Sudheer T C

Khan Sab Vs G Sushma Kedar

Sri Randheer Kumar Vs Sri Shaik Hussain