Partly allowed

Sharanappa Beerappa Pujari v. Motilal Satappa Naik and Anr.

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2013MFA/30045/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against an Accident Claims Tribunal award, the Court enhanced compensation for loss of future income, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and other heads to a total of Rs. 1,42,700 after deducting the original award, directing the insurance company to deposit this amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to deposit Rs. 1,42,700 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of application within eight weeks.

Sharanappa Beerappa Pujari Vs Motilal Satappa Naik… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.30045/2013 (MV)

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sharanappa Beerappa Pujari, Aged about 26 years, Occ: Security Guard, now nil, R/o Adavi Somanal, Muddebihal Tq. 586 212. …. Appellant.

¶9

(By Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, Adv.)

¶10

And:

¶11

1 Motilal Satappa Naik, Aged about 39 years, Occ; Business and Agriculture, R/o Hullur, L.T. Muddibihal 586 212.

¶12

2 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Division Office, S.S.Front Road, Bijapur – 586 101.

¶13

…. Respondents.

¶14

(By Sri Shivanand Patil, Adv. for R2 Notice to R1 dispensed with)

¶15

¶16

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 24.3.2012 in MVC No.131/2009 on the file of the Accident Claims Tribunal No.VIII at Muddebihal, etc.

¶17

This Miscellaneous First Appeal coming on for Admission this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award in

¶20

MVC No.131/2009 dated 24.3.2012 on the file of the Accident Claims Tribunal No.VIII, Muddebihal. The appellant is the claimant and the respondents are the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the

¶22

Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability to the whole body of the claimant at 10%. The claimant was working as Security Guard. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of future income He was hospitalised for about two months from 7.5.2009 to l6.7.2009. The Tribunal has not awarded appropriate compensation towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and towards attendant and conveyance charges.

¶23

¶24

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the

¶25

second respondent-Insurance Company has sought to justify the impugned judgment and award.

¶26

I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned

¶27

Counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.

¶28

There is no dispute as to the occurrence of the accident and

¶29

the liability of the second respondent-Insurance Company to pay compensation.

¶30

The contention of the appellant is that the claimant was grievously injured in the accident. He was hospitalised for about two months .The Doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has sustained the following injuries:

¶31

(i) Lower 1/3^rd of left radius is painful;

¶32

(ii) The roratory moments i.e. supination and pronation of the left elbow is restricted;

¶33

¶34

(iii) Unable to carry heavy objects for longer period with left hand; and

¶35

(iv) Cannot lift heavy objections from left hand.

¶36

On perusal of the x-ray of left hand, the Doctor has opined that fracture of lower 1/3^rd of left radius has united. According to him, the percentage of disability is 20%. The total bodily disability is 10%. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the cross-examination. It is also clear that the claimant was hospitalised from 7.5.2009 to 6.7.2009. The Tribunal has not awarded any compenastrion towards loss of future income. The claimant was aged 22 years at the time of the accident. The claimant has not produced any materials to show that he was earning more than Rs.6,000/- per month. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to take his monthly income at Rs.4,500/-. With the application of multiplier of 18 and taking into consideration the disability at 10%, the compensation payable towards loss of future income is Rs.97,200/-. The award of compensation towards pain and suffering in a sum of Rs.30,000/- is just and proper. I am of the view that he is entitled for

¶37

¶38

a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities. A sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards conveyance, nourishment, diet, etc. The medical expenses is awarded on the basis of the production of bills in a sum of Rs.10,000/-, which is just and proper. He is also entitled for three months earning in a sum of Rs.13,500/- towards loss of income during the laid up period. The award of compensation towards loss of comforts in a sum of Rs.3,000/- is just and proper. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation as under:

¶39

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount
1	Towards loss of future income	Rs.97,200.00
2	Towards painand sufferings	Rs. 30,000.00
3	Towardsloss ofamenities	Rs.20,000.00
4	Towards loss of income during the laid up period	Rs. 13,500.00
5	Towards conveyance, attendant charges	Rs.15,000.00
6	Towardsmedicalexpenses	Rs.10,000.00
7	Towards loss of comforts	Rs. 3,000.00
	*TOTAL*	*Rs.1,88,700.00*

¶40

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.46,000/- which has

¶41

to be deducted from the aforesaid amount and the balance of compensation payable to the claimant is Rs.1,42,700/-. The said sum of Rs.1,42,700/- shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

¶42

¶43

In the result, the appeal succeeds and it is accordingly

¶44

allowed in part. The second respondent – Insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,42,700/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the application till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount on its deposit. No costs.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE.

¶46

BMM/-

Sharanappa Beerappa Pujari v. Motilal Satappa Naik and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharanappa Beerappa Pujari v. Motilal Satappa Naik and Anr.

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 Manager United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Amrut S/O Chandrappa Chande

Ambadas S/O Nagnath Vs Chandrakanth S/O Nagshetty Ors.

Divisional Manager Vs Tukaram

Anjana @ Anjanabai and Ors. Vs Sangamesh S/O Hanmanthappa Sirage and Anr.

Rajasab S/O Peersab Shaikh Vs v. Srinivas S/O Venkataswamy Reddy Anr.

Laxmibai W/O Chandrahas Patil Vs Lalasabali S/O Abdulgani Shaikh