Oman Kuttan Vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.4869/13 ON THE FILE OF THE 9TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & 34TH ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 06.03.2015 passed in MVC No.4869/2013 on the file of the IX Additional Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT7, Bengaluru, for enhancing the compensation.

¶25

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the

¶26

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.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:7238 MFA No. 8798 of 2015

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The petitioner/injured claimant met with an accident on 14.05.2013 and filed petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.3,90,670/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed.

¶31

It is stated that the petitioner/injured was working as a Welder at Tool Masters (HMT Estates), Bengaluru, and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He has produced Ex.P.19, a letter issued by the employer, which shows that he was getting a salary of Rs.10,500/- per month and was also working overtime and earning incentives upto Rs.18,000/to Rs.20,000/- per month. The petitioner/injured was treated as an inpatient on two occasions in different hospitals for a total period of 66 days. It is further stated that he was bedridden for more than one year. But the Tribunal has taken his income at only Rs.6,000/- per month and has granted the laid-up period only for six months. The petitioner/injured examined the doctor as PW.3, who assessed the disability at 19% for the leg

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:7238 MFA No. 8798 of 2015

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

component and 10% to the whole body. But the Tribunal has taken the disability at 8% to the whole body. The amounts awarded under the other heads are also meagre. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶36

Learned counsel for respondent No.1/insurance company contended that 1/3^rd of 19% disability comes to 6% and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken the disability at 8%, which does not call for interference. It is further contended that the petitioner has not examined the employer to prove his salary nor produced any bank statement. Ex.P.12 is the salary certificate, which discloses that the petitioner was working as a Welder and was an efficient and sincere worker, getting a salary of Rs.10,500/- per month. The petitioner was paid overtime incentives for extra work and it comes to Rs.18,000/to Rs.20,000/- per month. The certificate also shows that he has not worked from 14.05.2013 to 21.09.2013, as he met with an accident and suffered leg injury and he reported to the duty on 23.09.2013 but unable to work. On perusal of the said certificate, it is evident that the petitioner is a skilled worker. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to take his income at

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:7238 MFA No. 8798 of 2015

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Rs.10,000/- per month instead of Rs.6,000/- per month taken by the Tribunal. The petitioner was aged 39 years and the applicable multiplier is ‘15’. The Petitioner/injured sustained degloving injury of right foot with multiple tendon injury, which is fresh and grievous in nature. Ex.P.6 is the wound certificate. As per the discharge summaries at Exs.P.7, P.8 and P.9, the petitioner was admitted as an inpatient for a total period of 66 days in different hospitals. Ex.P.10 consists of six photographs and Ex.P.11 is the CD relating to the injuries sustained by him. PW.3–doctor has stated that the petitioner has difficulty in walking and stiffness of the left ankle joint and assessed the disability of leg component at 19% and the permanent disability of the whole body at 10%. Based on the medical evidence, this Court finds it reasonable to take the whole body disability at 10%. Accordingly, the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.10,000 × 12 × 15 × 10%). The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,73,270/- towards medical expenses, which needs no interference. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to award Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.30,000/-

¶40

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:7238 MFA No. 8798 of 2015

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

towards loss of amenities. The loss of income during the laid-up period is assessed at Rs.60,000/- (Rs.10,000 × 6). The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards future medical expenses, which is confirmed. This Court further finds it reasonable to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges.

¶43

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is

¶44

as below:

¶45

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1.	Towards pain and suffering	50,000/-
2	Towards medical expenses	1,73,270/-
3	Towards loss of amenities	30,000/-
4	Towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges	30,000/-
5	Towards loss of income during laid up period	60,000/-
6	Towards future medical expenses	10,000/-
7.	Towards loss of future earning capacity	1,80,000/-
	Total	5,33,270/-

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:7238 MFA No. 8798 of 2015

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total

¶50

compensation of Rs.5,33,270/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶51

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶54

ii. The judgment and award dated 06.03.2015 passed in MVC No.4869/2013 on the file of the IX Additional Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT7, Bengaluru, is modified.

¶55

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,33,270/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.3,90,670/- granted by the tribunal.

¶56

iv. Respondent No.1/Insurance Company has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent

¶57