MR VARUN MANJUNATH V SHETTY vs THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 931

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9773 OF 2018(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MR. VARUN MANJUNATH V. SHETTY, @ VARUN MANJUNATH @ VARUN SHETTY, S/O VARADARAJ SHETTY, R/AT MARIGUDI BHANDARA HOUSE, PINTO LANE, MARIGUDI TEMPLE, BOLAR, MANGALURU.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD B. R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., EXTENSION COUNTER, 1^ST FLOOR, POOVA ARCADE, N.H.17, SURATHKAL, MANGALURU Digitally signed by AASEEFA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
PARVEEN Location: HIGH 2. MR. HARISH SHETTY, COURT OF S/O VISHWANATHA SHETTY, KARNATAKA ADULT,R/AT SRI ADIMAYE KRIPA, GAS AGENCY BUILDING, NEAR KARNATAKA BANK, THARDOLYA, JAPPINAMOGARU, MANGALURU.
…RESPONDENTS (SMT. NAYANASHREE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ASHOK N. NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH, V/O. DATED 21.09.2021)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11/06/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.1198/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, MANGALURU, D.K., PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

Petitioner Advocates:GURUPRASAD B R ,Respondent Advocate:

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri.Guruprasad.B.R, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Ms.Nayanashree who represents Sri.Ashok.N.Nayak, learned counsel on record for respondent No.1.

2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangaluru in MVC No.1198/2015 dated 11.06.2018. This is a claimant's appeal.

3. As against the claim for Rs.20,00,000/- in total, the Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.1,34,567/- as compensation and aggrieved by the same, projecting that he is entitled for a higher sum, the present appeal is filed.

4. Sri.Guruprasad.B.R, learned counsel for the appellant, arguing the matter, contends that the appellant sustained two grievous injuries and one simple injury during the course of road traffic accident. He took extensive treatment by remaining in hospital for a period of 14 days. The appellant was working as an AC mechanic and was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. Due to the injury sustained, he became permanently disabled. But without considering the evidence produced, the Tribunal granted meager sum as compensation and therefore, this appeal is filed. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement of compensation.

5. Ms.Nayanashree representing respondent No.1 on the other hand submits that the appellant failed to produce any evidence to show that he is permanently and completely disabled. Learned counsel submits that the compensation granted to the appellant is just and proper and therefore, the appeal is not maintainable.

6. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.12,500/- under the head pain and suffering, Rs.1,10,167/- towards medical expenses, Rs.4,200/- towards conveyance, Rs.4,200/- towards nourishment, Rs.3,500/- towards attendant charges and thus the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.1,34,567/- as compensation in total.

7. It is not in dispute that the appellant took treatment as inpatient for a period of 14 days. As per the contents of Ex.P6 - wound certificate, it is clear that the appellant sustained lacerated injury on his scalp which is simple in nature. He also sustained fracture of odontoid process of the cervical vertebrae and fracture of right tranverse process of L1 (Lumbar vertebrae). Those two injuries are grievous in nature.

8. The appellant through the evidence of Pw.2, his employer, succeeded in establishing that he was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. by the date of accident.

9. Having considered the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment taken, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.35,000/- under the head pain and suffering. The medical expenses to the extent proved is Rs.1,10,167/-. Also the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards food, extra nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment taken, this Court is of the view that the appellant would have taken bed rest at least for a period of three months. Thus loss of earnings during laid up period comes to RS.45,000/- (Rs.15,000X3). The appellant failed to produce any evidence to establish the aspect of disability. However, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities in life.

10. Therefore, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to under different heads is as under:

Sl. No	Description	Amount
1	Compensation for pain and suffering	Rs.35,000
2	Medical expenses	Rs.1,10,167
3	Towards food, extra nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	Rs.15,000
4	Loss of income during laid up period	Rs.45,000
5	Loss of amenities in life	Rs.15,000
Total		Rs.2,20,167

11. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following:

ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangaluru through orders in MVC No.1198/2015 dated 11.06.2018 is enhanced from Rs.1,34,567/- to Rs.2,20,167/-.

(iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document