Smt. Renuka Vs George D Souza

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORTUNE AVERI JUNCTION, FALNIR MANGALORE, 1ST FLOOR S.S. COMPLEX, ABOVE HARSHA BANGALORE-HONAVER ROAD P.B. NO.151, SHIVAMOGGA

¶14

(POLICY NO. 68080031160100004749

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:14392 M.F.A. No.9128/2018

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

VALID FROM 17.08.2016 TO 16.08.2017 ISSUED AT UDUPI BRANCH).

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV., FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS H/S V/O/DTD:20.02.2025)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN MVC NO.376/2017 DATED 23.07.2018, PARTIALLY ALLOWING THE PETITION BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL D.K. IN SO FAR AS THE DISALLOWED PORTION OF THE CLAIM IS CONCERNED AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL & ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed by the injured appellant seeking for higher compensation challenging the judgment and award dated 23.07.2018 passed in MVC.No.376/2017 by the IV Additional District Judge and Member MACT, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, (for short 'Tribunal').

¶26

Though this appeal is listed for orders, with the

¶27

consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14392 M.F.A. No.9128/2018

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Sri.S.Lakshminarayana, learned counsel

¶31

appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in awarding a meagre compensation of Rs.78,633/- to the injured appellant by ignoring the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 as well as the

¶32

other documentary evidence available on record. It is submitted that the Tribunal has ignored Ex.P3, the wound certificate and Ex.P9, the discharge summary, which clearly indicates the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant. Hence, he seeks to reassess the compensation by considering the evidence available on record.

¶33

4. Per contra, Sri.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel

¶34

appearing for respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the appellant has neither examined the doctor nor produced any disability certificate. It is submitted that the injuries suffered by the appellant are minor in nature and

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:14392 M.F.A. No.9128/2018

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

considering the said aspect, the Tribunal has awarded just compensation under the other heads. Hence, there is no scope to enhance the compensation and seeks to dismiss

¶39

the appeal.

¶40

I have heard the arguments on both the sides

¶41

and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶42

The material on record indicates that the

¶43

appellant met with a road accident on 11.10.2016 and sustained following injuries which is evident from Exhibit P3:

¶44

"1. Left side fore head - Lacerated wound

¶45

8cm x 1cm. 2. Multiple abrasions over face.

¶46

3. Laceration left side chin.

¶47

4. Swelling left foot - fibula.

¶48

5. Swelling left knee joint - dislocation of left patella."

¶49

The records indicate that the appellant was

¶50

provided treatment as an inpatient for a period of 8 days as is evident from Ex.P9, the discharge summary. It is the

¶51

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14392 M.F.A. No.9128/2018

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

claim of the appellant that she was working with PW2 as a beedi roller and was earning Rs.500/- per day, apart from food and other expenses. However, no acceptable evidence has been placed before the Tribunal to substantiate the income of the appellant. Therefore, the income of the appellant is notionally reassessed at Rs.9,500/- per month by placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by the KSLSA.

¶54

The Tribunal has not awarded any

¶55

compensation under the head of loss of amenities, which is required to be considered in the present case. However, the award of compensation under the heads of medical expenses and pain & suffering remains unaltered. Having reassessed the income and by considering Exs.P3, P9 and other medical evidence available on record, I am of the view that the compensation under the other heads is required to be reassessed. Accordingly, the same is reassessed. The appellant is entitled to the modified compensation as under:

¶56

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14392 M.F.A. No.9128/2018

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

HEADS	AMOUNT (in Rs.)
Pain & suffering	50,000
Loss of amenities	30,000
Medical expenses	10,633
Loss of income during the laid-up period (Rs.9500 X 2)	19,000
Food & nutrition and attendance charges.	15,000
Total	1,24,633

¶59

Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a

¶60

total compensation of Rs. 1,24,633 /- as against Rs.78,633/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶61

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶62

following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

a) Appeal stands allowed in part .

¶65

b) The impugned judgment and award of the

¶66

Tribunal is modified to an extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 1,24,633 /- as

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:14392 M.F.A. No.9128/2018

¶68

7 -

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

against Rs.78,633/awarded by the

¶71

Tribunal.

¶72

c) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.

¶73

d) The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶74

e) On such deposit, the Tribunal shall release the entire enhanced compensation amount in favour of the appellant.

¶75

f) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶76

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶77

ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Smt. Renuka v. George D Souza

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Renuka v. George D Souza

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 Geetha Vs Smt Saritha

Sri Kishore T Vs the Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd.

M/S Religare Finvest Limited Vs M/S Akshara International School

Sri. Basavaraj.G Vs Sri. Gangadharappa M

Divisional Controller Vs Sanjay Kumar

Sri Vinayak M K Vs the Managing Director