Jayaprakash Rao N Vs Puttaraju P

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.05.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.1471/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND

¶21

SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶23

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:7577 MFA No. 8132 of 2022

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

Heard Sri.Shantharaj.K, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.K.Nagarajaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶30

This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru in MVC No.1471/2018 dated 25.05.2022. This is a claimant's appeal.

¶31

Appellant knocked the doors of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on the ground that he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2018. The Tribunal through the impugned order held that appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,68,500/- as compensation. With a version that the compensation granted is grossly low, this appeal is filed.

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:7577 MFA No. 8132 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

¶35

appellant sustained multiple injuries in a road traffic accident one among those being fracture to right tibia and fibula. Learned counsel states that Pw.2 examined the appellant and assessed the disability in respect of whole body as 12%. But the Tribunal for the reasons best known took the disability in respect of whole body as 4%. Learned counsel also states that the appellant as a businessman was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as on the date of accident. However, the Tribunal took the notional income of the appellant as Rs.9,000/- per month. Learned counsel contends that the accident occurred in the year 2018 and for the relevant the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income as Rs.12,500/- per month and at least said figure should have been adopted by the Tribunal. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement in compensation.

¶36

To substantiate his contention that the disability

¶37

as assessed by Pw.2 should be taken into consideration

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:7577 MFA No. 8132 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

and the Tribunal should not interfere with the assessment of a doctor and should not reduce the disability from that which is assessed by the doctor, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between S.Ettiappan and D.Kumar & Another in Spl.Leave Petition(c) No.15621/2025 .

¶41

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is valid in all aspects. Learned counsel also states that appellant failed to produce any proof either with regard to his occupation or earnings as on the date of accident.

¶42

Pw.2 assessed the disability as 12% in respect of right lower limb. Therefore, the said disability of 12% cannot be deemed to be of that of whole body. Hence the decision that is relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant cannot be taken into consideration so as to hold that the disability assessed by Pw.2 i.e., 12% in respect of

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:7577 MFA No. 8132 of 2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

particular limb has to be taken in respect of whole body. However, taking into consideration the evidence of Pw.2, this Court is of the view that the disability in respect of whole body is required to be taken as 8%.

¶46

The appellant failed to produce any proof with regard to his occupation and earnings as on the date of accident. However, considering the submission that is made by learned counsel for the appellant, the notional income of the appellant is taken as Rs.12,500/- per month. Thus taking the notional income of the appellant as Rs.12,500/- per month, the appropriate multiplier to be applied as 7 and the disability in respect of whole body as 8%, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive towards loss of future earnings comes to Rs.84,000/- (Rs.12,500 x 12 x 7 x 8%).

¶47

The Tribunal opined that appellant could not

¶48

have attended his normal pursuits at least for a period of 3 months. Thus loss of income during laid up period comes

¶49

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:7577 MFA No. 8132 of 2022

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

to Rs.37,500/- (Rs.12,500 x 3). By all the evidence produced, appellant established that apart from fracture to upper shaft of tibia and fibula right, he sustained abrasions over left dorsum of foot and loss of incissor teeth. Having considered these factors and also taking note of the fact that appellant took treatment as inpatient for a long period of 22 days during which he also underwent a surgery, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to compensation under following heads:

¶52

Sl. No	Description	Amount
1	Compensation for pain and suffering	Rs.40,000
2	Towards food, extra nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	Rs.20,000
3	Medical expenses	Rs.51,083
4	Loss of future earnings	Rs.84,000
5	Loss of income during laid up period	Rs.37,500
6	Future medical expenses	Rs.10,000
7	Loss of amenities in life	Rs.15,000
	Total	Rs.2,57,583

¶53

8 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:7577 MFA No. 8132 of 2022

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

The Tribunal through the impugned order held that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,68,500/- as compensation. However, the discussion that went on supra makes it clear that he is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,57,583/as compensation. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶59

(ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru through orders in MVC No.1471/2018 dated 25.05.2022 is enhanced from Rs.1,68,500/- to Rs.2,57,583/-.

¶60

(iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶61

(iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of 8(eight) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:7577 MFA No. 8132 of 2022

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

9 -

¶65

(v) On such deposit, appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

¶66

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶67

NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Jayaprakash Rao N v. Puttaraju P

Case brief

What is this about?

Jayaprakash Rao N v. Puttaraju P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Sathish Shetty Vs Mrs. Sheebha Shetty

Madhu Vs Pallavi

Sathyanarayana Manohar Vs Smt Suman S

Mr Vivek George Jacob Vs Mrs Elizabeth George

Sri Jayanth L Vs Smt Shilpa v

Ravi S Vs Prathima R