Partly allowed

Sri M Nagaraja v. Sri K S Manjunatha

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2012MFA/7687/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, the High Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 1,38,000 to Rs. 2,27,600, directing the insurer to pay the enhanced amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 1,38,000 to Rs. 2,27,600. Enhanced amount carries interest at 6% p.a. from date of petition till payment. Insurer to deposit within six weeks.

Sri M Nagaraja Vs Sri K S Manjunatha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^th DAY OF JUNE 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA

¶6

MFA.No.7687 OF 2008 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri.M.Nagaraja, S/o Late Muniyappa, Aged about 25 years, Residing at Guguttahalli, Jaigenahalli Hobli, Doddanallala Post, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural district. ... Appellant

¶9

[By Smt.Suguna.R.Reddy, Advocate]

¶10

AND:

¶11

Sri.K.S.Manjunatha, Aged Major, Residing at No.225, 21st Cross, Kagadasapura, Bangalore-560 093.

¶12

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd., Sathi Complex, Door No.2, No.61, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore-560 027. ….Respondents

¶13

[By Smt. N.Deepa for M/s. Lex Plexus, Advocates; Notice to R-1 is dispensed with vide order dated 18.1.2012]

¶14

¶15

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of MV Act, against the judgment and award dated 28.11.2006 passed in MVC No.1775/2005 on the file of the X Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-16), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement for compensation.

¶16

This Appeal coming for hearing on this day, the court delivered the following:

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

This appeal by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.11.2006 passed by the Member, MACT and X Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore in MVC.No.1775/05.

¶19

The appellant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the personal injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred at 8.00 a.m. on 20.12.2004 on NH-4 as a result of lorry bearing registration No.KA-03/D-5315 dashing against him while he was crossing the road. According to the claimant, in the accident he sustained injuries to his head and fracture of right humerus apart from other injuries. According to him, he

¶20

¶21

was immediately taken to Ashwini Hospital in Hosakote, where he was given first aid treatment and from there he was taken to NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore for treatment of head injury, where he under went surgery for removal of edema (blood clot) and from there he was referred to SNR Hospital, Kolar for further management and treatment for the fracture of right humerus. According to him, he was treated as inpatient in SNR Hospital, Kolar where he was operated and by using implants, fracture of the right humerus was reduced; that in spite of treatment he has suffered permanent disability; that he is unable to lift his hand, work as a coolie and he also get headache and giddiness if he works under the sun. Therefore, he sought for compensation of Rs.14 lakhs.

¶22

Respondent No.1 who is the owner of the offending lorry did not contest the petition. However, the second respondent – insurer of the offending lorry contested the petition. After the parties led evidence, the Tribunal, on assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, by the judgment under appeal, answered issue No.1 regarding actionable negligence in the affirmative holding that the

¶23

¶24

claimant sustained grievous injuries in the accident which was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The Tribunal, in the light of the oral and documentary evidence and having regard to the nature of the injuries as well as the treatment in various hospitals, quantified the compensation under different heads as under:

¶25

Compensation	towardspain and agony-	Rs. 30,000/-
Compensation nourishment, charges, loss period, future loss of earning	towards medical expenses, conveyance and attendant of income during treatment loss of income or future capacity	Rs.1,00,000/-
Compensation	towards future medical	Rs. 8,000/-
expenses
	Total	Rs.1,38,000/-

¶26

Thus the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,38,000/- and directed the insurer of the offending vehicle to pay the said amount with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant is in appeal before this Court.

¶27

¶28

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-insurer. Perused the records secured from the Tribunal.

¶29

The finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 regarding actionable negligence has not been assailed by the respondent. Therefore, the only question required to be considered by this Court is, “Whether the appellant / claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? If so, to what extent?”

¶30

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate having regard to the nature of the injury, the treatment as well as permanent disability suffered by the claimant; that the Tribunal has not properly quantified the compensation payable under different heads such as loss of amenities, loss of future earning capacity etc.. Therefore, the learned counsel contends that the compensation as quantified by the Tribunal under different heads is too low and it deserves to be enhanced.

¶31

¶32

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent sought to justify the judgment under appeal and contended that the compensation quantified by the Tribunal is just and proper and it does not call for enhancement.

¶33

The evidence on record, which has been accepted by the Tribunal clearly established that in the accident, the appellant / claimant sustained head injury, fracture of right humerus apart from other injuries. For the head injury, he was treated in NIMHANS, Bangalore where he underwent surgery, from there he was referred to local Hospital at Kolar and he was treated in SNR Hospital, Kolar for fracture of right humerus. The evidence of PW.2 which has been accepted by the Tribunal clearly indicate that in SNR Hospital, Kolar, the claimant was operated for the reduction of the fracture of right humerus and fracture was reduced by using implants and when the claimant was examined by PW.2 about 2 years thereafter also, the implants were in situ. The evidence of the claimant as PW.1 and Doctor as PW.2 would clearly establish that in spite of the treatment, the claimant has suffered permanent disability in his right hand, he is unable to work using his right hand as before.

¶34

¶35

The evidence on record indicates that the claimant is a coolie worker, thereby he is a manual labourer. The disability incurred by him in the right hand would certainly come in the way of his strenuous physical work as a coolie. PW.2 has assessed the percentage of disability to the right upper limb at 40% and to the whole body at 20%. Having regard to the nature of the avocation of the claimant, the whole body disability as furnished by the Doctor could be reasonably taken as functional disability affecting his future earning capacity. The perusal of the judgment under appeal indicates that the learned member of the Tribunal has not quantified the compensation payable under different heads such as loss of amenities, loss of future earning, compensation towards medical expenses, nourishment, conveyance etc. The Tribunal has awarded a lump sum of Rs.1 lakh under all these heads without independently quantifying the compensation. The method of quantification of the compensation by the Tribunal is not in tune with the well settled principles of law. It is well settled that in a claim petition seeking compensation for the personal injuries, the Tribunal is under an obligation to quantify the compensation

¶36

¶37

payable under different heads. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, the Tribunal ought to have quantified the compensation payable under different heads independently. As noticed supra, the claimant was a labourer. The accident occurred in the year 2004. Having regard to the cost of living and the wages paid for such kind of work during that period, it is reasonable to hold that he must have been earning at least Rs.100/- per day i.e., Rs.3,000/- per month. Even if 20% of the whole body disability as spoken to by PW.2 is accepted as functional disability, the future loss of earning will have to be quantified at Rs.600/- per month and Rs.7,200/- per annum. Regard being had to the age of the claimant, as 22 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable would be “18”. On that basis, the total compensation payable towards loss of future earning works out to Rs.1,29,600/(Rs.600/- x 12 x 18). The appellant / claimant is entitled for that amount under the said head.

¶38

Evidence of P.W.2 as noticed supra, clearly establishes that the permanent disabilities suffered by the claimant would certainly come in the way of future

¶39

¶40

enjoyment of his life. In addition to this PW.2 has also stated that on account of head injuries he will not be in a position to work under sun for long. The claimant will have to endure with this disability during the rest of his life. The claimant who is a young person has a long life ahead. Taking into consideration all these factors, interest of justice would be met by awarding Rs.30,000/- under loss of amenities.

¶41

The compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings, having regard to the evidence on record, is on the lower side and it deserves to be enhanced. In my opinion, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and sufferings.

¶42

There is no dispute that as per the bills produced, the claimant has spent Rs.12,000/- towards medical expenses. The evidence on record establishes that the claimant was treated as inpatient in two Hospitals for a period of 31 days. During this period, some one must have attended on him. They also must have spent a substantial amount towards conveyance as also special diet and

¶43

¶44

nourishing food. Taking into consideration all these factors, I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- under this head.

¶45

The award of Rs.8,000/- by the Tribunal towards future medical expenses is just and proper and it does not call for enhancement. Thus the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,27,600/- as against Rs.1,38,000/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶46

In the light of the above, the appeal is allowed-inpart. The compensation payable to the appellant-claimant is enhanced to Rs.2,27,600/- as against Rs.1,38,000/awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation of Rs.89,600/- shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The second respondent – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest within six weeks from today.

¶47

SD/JUDGE

¶48

RS/*

Sri M Nagaraja v. Sri K S Manjunatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Nagaraja v. Sri K S Manjunatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Miss v Tejaswini

Sri M Prajwal Kumar @ M Prajwal Vs Sri Nagaraj S/O Rudrappa H

Smt T Girijamma Vs N Karibasavaraju

Sri Syed Swaleha Shareef Vs the General Manager

Master Chalapathy S/O. Late Venkateshappa Vs Sri H N Manjunatha

T Mylarappa Vs G Ekanthappa