Goudappa S/O Sharanagouda v. Shivakumar S/O Basavaraj and Anr.

Karnataka HC23 Jul 2013MFA/30378/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this appeal in part, enhancing the compensation awarded for motor vehicle accident injuries. The court substituted the Tribunal's assessment, fixing permanent disability at 10% rather than 4% and adjusting the claimant's income to Rs. 4,500 monthly. Additional compensation for loss of future income, amenities, and past expenses was granted, totaling an extra Rs. 79,400 with

What did the court decide?

Insurance company directed to deposit Rs. 79,400 with 6% interest within eight weeks.

Goudappa S/O Sharanagouda Vs Shivakumar S/O… — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JULY 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.30378/2013 (MV)

¶7

Between:

¶8

Goudappa, S/o Sharanagouda, Aged about 32 years, Occ;Goundi, now nil, R/o Samata Colony, Gulbarga. …. Appellant.

¶9

(By Sri S.V. Paraddy, Adv.)

¶10

And:

¶11

1 Shivakumar, S/o Basavaraj Kori, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Business,R/o Shanta Nagar, Jewargi Tq., Gulbarga Dist.

¶12

2 The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., N.G.Complex, Opp.Mini Vidhana Soudha, Main Road, Gulbarga. …. Respondents.

¶13

(By Sri Sanjay M. Joshi, Adv. for R2 Notice to R1 dispensed with)

¶14

¶15

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 5.12.2012 in MVC No.547/2011 on the file of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT at Gulbarga, etc.

¶16

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

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award in MVC No.547/2011 dated 5.12.2012 on the file of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Gulbarga whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.55,900/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation.

¶19

The contention of the learned Counsel for the

¶20

appellant/claimant is that the claimant had suffered grievous injuries in the accident. The Doctor has assessed the permanent disability at 10% to the whole body. The Tribunal has taken only 4% permanent disability to the whole body. The claimant was working as mason

¶21

and earning more than Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal has taken Rs.3,600/- per month for computation of loss of future income. It is

¶22

¶23

argued that having regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant, the compensation awarded under all other heads is also on a lower side.

¶24

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent-Insurance Company has sought to justify the impugned judgment and award.

¶25

I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned Counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.

¶26

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

¶27

the liability of the second respondent-Insurance Company to pay compensation. The only question for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate?

¶28

It is clear from the injury certificate at Ex.P5 that the claimant had sustained the following injuries:

¶29

¶30

“1. Swelling over left wrist. Tenderness and crepts present just above left wrist.

¶31

Abrasion over right palm, 1 x 1 inch.

¶32

Abrasions right knee, two no.1/2 x 1 inch, 1 x 1 inch.

¶33

Abrasion over right ankle ½ x ½ inch.

¶34

X-ray of left wrist reveals fracture lower end of radius and fracture of styloid of ulna.”

¶35

The Doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant had

¶36

sustained 10% permanent disability to the whole body. In my view, the Tribunal is not justified in assessing 4% permanent disability to the whole body. The claimant was working as a mason, which is also clear from the materials on record. Though the claimant asserts that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, the said assertion is not supported by any documentary evidence on record. The accident had occurred on 27.5.2008. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to notionally fix his income at

¶37

Rs.4,500/- per month. He was aged 28 years at the time of the accident. The multiplier applicable to the case is 17. By taking his income at Rs.4,500/- per month with the application of multiplier 17

¶38

¶39

and taking 10% permanent disability to the whole body, the compensation towards loss of future income comes to Rs.91,800/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is just and reasonable. The award of medical expenses in a sum of Rs.5,000/- is also proper. However, he is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges, Rs.13,500/- towards loss of earning during the laid up period and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation as under:

¶40

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount
1	Towards loss of future income	Rs.91,800.00
2	Towards painand sufferings	Rs.10,000.00
3	Towardsloss ofamenities	Rs.10,000.00
4	Towards loss of income during the laid up period	Rs. 13,500.00
5	Towards nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges	Rs. 5,000.00
6	Towardsmedicalexpenses	Rs. 5,000.00
	*TOTAL*	*Rs.1,35,300.00*

¶41

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.55,900/- which has

¶42

to be deducted from the aforesaid amount and the balance of

¶43

¶44

compensation payable to the claimant is Rs.79,400/-. The said sum of Rs.79,400/- shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

¶45

In the result, the appeal succeeds and it is accordingly

¶46

allowed in part. The second respondent – Insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.79,400/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the application till the date of deposit within

¶47

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.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE.

¶49

BMM/-

Goudappa S/O Sharanagouda v. Shivakumar S/O Basavaraj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goudappa S/O Sharanagouda v. Shivakumar S/O Basavaraj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Srilatha W/O Late S.Gopala Reddy Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Ors.

Mohd. Gaffar S/O Mohd Khaseem Ali Vs Mohd. Arif S/O Ismail Anr.

Basha S/O Gulabsab Kalal @ Shaikh Vs Sanjiv S/O Pundalik Naik and Anr.

Mallikarjun Alias Mallinath S/O Lakkappa Anr. Vs M Udaykumar S/O R Marappan Anr.

Kasturibai W/O Late Gurulingayya Swami Vs Sri Nabisab Dastgir Mulla

Mahadev S/O Sahebrao Dhigode and Ors. Vs Sabale Waghire and Comapny Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.