Partly allowed

Pushpa W/O Virupakshappa Sajjan v. T. Ramesh S/O Tangavelu and Anr.

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2014MFA/30263/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous first appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the Bench enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant due to injuries sustained in a road accident, granting an additional sum with interest for loss of future earnings, pain and suffering, and treatment expenses.

What did the court decide?

Additional sum of Rs.42,200 with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its payment, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Pushpa W/O Virupakshappa Sajjan Vs T. Ramesh S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

GULBARGA BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PACHHAPURE

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.30263/2013 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Pushpa W/o Virupakshappa Sajjan, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Tutor at Trimurti Coaching Centre, Bijapur, R/o Kanakadas Badavane, Bijapur.

¶10

... APPELLANT

¶11

(By Smt. Shailaja C.D., & Smt. Ratna N. Shivayogimath, Advs.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

T.Ramesh S/o Tangavelu, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Transport Business, R/o No.580, Shivabasav Nagar, Belgaum – 590 002.

¶14

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Sundaram Towers, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 014, Reg. Office: Royal Sundaram

¶15

¶16

Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., 21, Patullos Road, Chennai-60002.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(Sri. Sudarshan M., Adv. for R2; R1 – served & unrepresented)

¶19

This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act, against the judgment and award dated 15.09.2012 passed in MVC No.1848/2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.VII Bijapur at Bijapur, partly allowing the claim petition and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶20

This appeal coming on for hearing on I.A. this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Though the matter is listed for hearing on I.A.,

¶23

with the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶24

The appellant dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident, has filed this appeal, seeking

¶25

enhancement.

¶26

The facts reveal that on 15.10.2008 when the appellant was traveling in the bus bearing

¶27

¶28

No.KA25/B8131, a lorry bearing No.MH26/H6373 hit the bus and thereby in the accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. She was treated in the hospital. She suffered disability and therefore, made a claim for compensation.

¶29

After connecting other claim petitions arising

¶30

out of the same accident, the common evidence was recorded and the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.57,300/- with interest @ 6% p.a. as compensation. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, the claimant has filed the present appeal.

¶31

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶32

The point that arise for my consideration is,

¶33

Whether the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation? If so, to what extent?

¶34

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the assessment of income and the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering, loss of income during the period of treatment and food, nourishment, attendant charges etc. is on the lower side and therefore, she seeks enhancement. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 – insurer supports the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶36

The appellant is a B.A. graduate. The

¶37

certificate is produced at Ex.P26. She has tailoring experience and has produced the certificate at Ex.P27. She was earning Rs.9,000/per month. The salary certificate is produced at Ex.P25. Anyhow, the contents of the salary certificate have not been proved. Taking into consideration the year of the accident, the fact that the appellant is a graduate and has tailoring experience, it would be just and proper to consider

¶38

¶39

her income at Rs.6,000/- per month. As per the injury certificate produced at Ex.P22, she has suffered the fracture of zygomatic bone. There is 20 to 25% disability stated by the doctor and the Tribunal has accepted it at 5%. No reasons to enhance the disability assessed by the Tribunal. She was aged 35 years at the time of the accident. The multiplier applicable is 16. Therefore, the loss of future earning would be Rs.6,000/x12x16x5/100=Rs.57,600/-. Deducting a sum of Rs.38,400/- awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.19,200/towards the loss of future earning.

¶40

Only a sum of Rs.6,000/- has been awarded as compensation towards pain and agony. As the appellant has suffered fracture and other simple injuries, it would be just and proper to grant a sum of Rs.20,000/- on this head. Hence, the appellant

¶41

¶42

is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.14,000/- on this head.

¶43

Towards the loss of income during the period of treatment, only a sum of Rs.2,000/- has been granted. Taking into consideration the period of treatment, the healing of the fracture, I think, an additional sum of Rs.7,000/- would be just and reasonable on this head.

¶44

Only a sum of Rs.3,000/- has been awarded towards food, nourishment, attendant charges etc. An additional sum of Rs.2,000/- would meet the ends of justice.

¶45

Thereby, in all the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.42,200/- with interest @ 6% p.a. Accordingly, the point raised is answered in affirmative.

¶46

¶47

Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.42,200/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its payment, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Pushpa W/O Virupakshappa Sajjan v. T. Ramesh S/O Tangavelu and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa W/O Virupakshappa Sajjan v. T. Ramesh S/O Tangavelu 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

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Amaragundappa S/O Late Basappa and Ors.

Malingaraya S/O Shivanna Balabatti Vs Mohd. Imran Ahmed S/Omohd. Yousuf and Anr.

The Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.,Ltd Vs Hanamanth S/O Jaganappa Lamani @ Rathod

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Vs Smt.Laxmi @ Anjana Devi

Icici Lombard Gen. Ins, Co.,Ltd, Vs Peerappa S/O Dhulappa Dharigond and Otrs

Manjunath @ Manjugouda S/O Yamunappa Gouda Vs B.S. Biradar S/O Shanta Gouda Biradar and Anr.