Revathi Vs the Managing Director

REVATHI W/O NARAYAN K, NOW AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 764, 12^TH CROSS, INDIRANAGAR SLUM, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010 ALSO AT: NO 469, 9^TH CROSS, INDIRANAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHEKHAR BMTC DEPOT, DESAI BANGALORE CENTRAL OFFICE, Location: High K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, Court of BANGALORE-560 027. Karnataka

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.11.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2319/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-6),

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:20557 MFA No. 885 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 24.11.2022 passed in MVC No. 2319/2021 on the file of the IV Additional JUDGE, Court Of Small Causes, MACT, Bengaluru City , for enhancing the compensation.

¶23

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶24

the appellant and learned counsel for respondent. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶25

The injured claimant met with an accident on 19.03.2021 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal considered the entire evidence on record and granted an amount of

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20557 MFA No. 885 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Rs.5,04,089/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.,

¶29

from date of petition till realization.

¶30

Aggrieved by the said award, this appeal is preferred in which it is contended that the petitioner suffered compression fracture of C6 vertebra and also underwent surgery. PW2/doctor assessed the whole body disability as 30%. The Tribunal has not added future prospects and thus requested for enhancement of the compensation. The petitioner stated that she was a house maker and she met with an accident in the year 2021, this court finds it reasonable to take her notional income as Rs.15,000/- per month, as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. She was aged 45 years at the time of accident and the relevant multiplier

¶31

to be taken is ‘14’. Exs.P8 and P70 are the Wound certificates, Exs.P9, P10 and P70 are the discharge summaries. Further, she also filed medical bills and prescriptions. PW2/doctor was examined who was working as consultant spine surgeon and stated that petitioner

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20557 MFA No. 885 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

sustained compression fracture of C6 vertebra and underwent surgery on 25.03.2021 in the form of ACDF with C5-C6 disc cage and anterior cervical plate. The injured was put on antibiotics, analgesics and physiotherapy. Further stated that he noted that the healed surgical scar over the front of right lower neck and had grade 4 pain as per VAS score. The x-ray C spine AP/lat shows healed C6 fracture with implant insitu from C5 to C7. After the evaluation, the doctor assessed the disability as 30% to the whole body. He further stated that the petitioner is unable to do her duty properly and needs assistance for hard labour due to pain and deformity. Dislocation and compression factor of C6 vertebrae. As the disability is more than 20%, she is entitled for future prospects. As per the citation in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Abdul & Anr., reported in MFA No.103807/2016 (MV) , she was aged 45 years and the future prospects is to be taken as 25%. The petitioner is entitled for 25% towards future

¶35

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20557 MFA No. 885 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

prospects, so loss of her future earning capacity comes to Rs.15,000 + 25% x 12 x 14 x 22% = Rs.6,93,000/-. The Tribunal granted Rs.1,01,189/- towards medical expenses and the same is confirmed. The petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 11 days. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and other relevant facts, this court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.75,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.30,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. The petitioner might not have attended any other word for a period of 4 months. Therefore, Rs.60,000/- is to be under the head loss of income during the laid up period.

¶38

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

¶39

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:20557 MFA No. 885 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1	Loss of future income earning capacity	6,93,000
2	Pain and suffering	75,000
3	Loss of amenities	50,000
4	Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges.	30,000
5	Loss of income during laid down period	60,000
6	Medical Expenditure	1,01,189
	Total	10,09,089

¶42

Hence, the compensation granted by tribunal is enhanced from Rs.5,04,089/- to Rs.10,09,089 /- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶43

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶46

ii. The judgment and award dated 24.11.2022 passed in MVC No. 2319/2021 on the file of the IV Additional JUDGE,

¶47

7 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:20557 MFA No. 885 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Court Of Small Causes, MACT, Bengaluru City, is modified.

¶51

iii. The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,09,089/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.5,04,089/granted by the tribunal.

¶52

iv. Respondent/Insurance Company has already deposited the awarded amount before the tribunal. Therefore, respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.5,05,100/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶53

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:20557 MFA No. 885 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

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

¶56

vi. On 27.06.2025, the delay of 328 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 delay period.

¶57

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶58

AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68

Revathi v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Revathi v. the Managing Director

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

Smt. Susheela H N Vs Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Sri. Vinay Prasad Vs the Managing Director, Bmtc

Sushma H M Vs Shashi Kumar D

Smt M J Nisarga Vs a M Jagadeesh

Mrs Nayanika Rajashekara Vs Vivek Desai

Shyamalamma Vs Reliance Gen Insurance Company Ltd.