Karnataka High Court
Siddu S/O Ram Gouli vs Mohd Ameer Pasha And Anr on 8 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:67
MFA No. 200178 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200178 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SIDDU S/O RAM GOULI,
AGE: 29 EYARS, OCC: ELECTRICIAN,
R/O NEAR TIPPANNA HAKEEM HOUSE,
ROZA (B), KALABURAGI-585 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHD. AMEER PASHA S/O SHIAK MAHEBOOB,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE
AUTO NO.KA-32/B-2239,
Digitally signed R/O MAHEBOOB NAGAR COLONY,
by LUCYGRACE NOORANI MOHELLA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF KALABURAGI-585 101.
KARNATAKA
2. THE MANAGER,
UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
2A. 2ND FLOOR, 84 RAMSON COMPLEX,
P.B.ROAD HOSUR, HUBALI-580 021.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R2;
V/O DTD. 20.06.2017, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:67
MFA No. 200178 of 2017
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.09.2016
PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.965/2013 BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT AT KALABURAGI AND ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION FROM RS.1,26,000/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO
RS.9,45,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
By the consent of learned counsel appearing for both
the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal,
though it is slated for Admission.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
award in MVC No.965/2013 passed by learned I Additional
Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short), dated 22.09.2016.
2. By the impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has allowed the claim petition in part and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:67
awarded a sum of Rs.1,26,000/- as compensation and
directed the Insurance Company to deposit the same.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the petitioner
is before this Court, seeking enhancement contending that
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
erroneous.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2.
4. Both the counsel agreed that the only question
that arises in this appeal is about the quantum of
compensation.
5. The appellant/petitioner contended that on
26.07.2013 he was proceeding towards his house at
Danka cross and a auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-32/B-
2239 came from opposite direction and dashed against
him causing injuries to him, due to which, the petitioner
sustained fracture of Zygomatic complex, vertical fracture
on the jaw region and capsal fracture over the jaw regions
NC: 2025:KHC-K:67
and has lost 7 teeth. The petitioner examined a Dentist as
PW.2, who opined that there is a disability for the
petitioner to chew and consume food and therefore, there
is a disability of 50% for the jaws and 20% for the whole
body. The petitioner was an inpatient from 26.07.2013 to
30.07.2013 and had to resort to artificial teeth being
implanted with crown etc.
6. After considering the entire evidence available
on record and hearing both sides, the Tribunal has
awarded a compensation of Rs.1,26,000/- to the petitioner
under following heads:
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 50,000/-
3. Attendant & conveyance Rs. 750/-
charges
4. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/-
Total Rs.1,25,750/-
Rounded off to Rs.1,26,000/-
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact
that the appellant had to suffer for the rest of the life and
it would definitely cause discomfort in his profession as an
NC: 2025:KHC-K:67
electrician. It is also contended that such discomfort would
result in reduction of his income and therefore, adequate
and appropriate compensation be awarded to him.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 - Insurance Company submits that the
physical disability assessed by PW.2 would not in anyway
impair the profession of the petitioner as an electrician. He
submits that the discomfort for chewing and eating food
would not be of any consequence for future loss of income
and therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is adequate.
9. It is pertinent to note that though the loss of
7 teeth and the injuries suffered to the Zygomatic arch of
the appellant would not directly translate into a disability
which would affect his earning capacity, there is substance
in the submission that such disability/injury would result in
discomfort for the rest of his life. Obviously, the appellant
though stated that he had to resort to artificial implant of
the teeth and the crown, has not produced such bills. The
NC: 2025:KHC-K:67
Tribunal or this Court cannot shut its eyes to such
requirement of the appellant, when he was aged about 25
years. Therefore, it would be proper to award a
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of medical
expenses instead of Rs.50,000/- as awarded by the
Tribunal.
10. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-
under the head of loss of amenities in life. Considering the
fact that the appellant may suffer the discomfort for the
rest of the life, it would be just and proper to award a sum
of Rs.75,000/- under this head.
11. Lastly, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.750/- under the head of attendant and conveyance
charges. Evidently, the appellant was an inpatient for a
period of 5 days. Considering the fact that the treatment
of the appellant for the loss of teeth and the implant would
stretch over several settings before the Dentist, a sum of
Rs.10,000/- has to be awarded under this head.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:67
12. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under the remaining heads does not call for any
interference by this Court. Hence, the appellant is entitled
for the modified compensation under different heads as
below:
Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-
Medical expenses Rs.1,00,000/-
Attendant & conveyance charges Rs.10,000/-
Loss of amenities in life Rs.75,000/-
Total Rs.2,10,000/-
Less: awarded by Tribunal Rs.1,26,000/-
Enhancement Rs.84,000/-
Thus, the appellant is entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.84,000/- with interest and therefore,
the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of
Rs.84,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:67
Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till its realization.
(iii) Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed
to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period
of six weeks from the date of this order.
(iv) Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal remains
unaltered.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
LG
