Partly allowed

Kisansingh S/O Parasuramsingh Hajeri v. Rachappa R Masareddy and Anr.

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2014MFA/30547/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a first appeal filed to enhance compensation for a motor accident victim. The court held that despite the tribunal's rejection of the doctor's report, there was evidence of restricted shoulder movement and hearing issues. The court reassessed disability at 5% and granted additional compensation for loss of future income.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 38,400 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its payment.

Kisansingh S/O Parasuramsingh Hajeri Vs Rachappa R… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

MFA 30547/13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA GULBARGA BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014

¶5

BEFORE:

¶6

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

¶7

MISCELLANEOUSFIRSTAPPEALNo.30547OF2013[MV]

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Kisansingh,
S/o. Parasuramsingh Hajeri,
Age 49 years,
Occ: Driver [present: nil],
R/o. Sai Park,
Bijapur-586 101. … APPELLANT/S
 [By Sri. Sanganabasava B.Patil, Adv.]

¶10

AND:

¶11

1.Rachappa R.Masaraddy,
Age 44 years,
Occ: Agril.,
R/o. Marakatti, Tq: Mudhol,
Dist: Bagalkot-585 101.

¶12

2.The Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Sangom Building,
Bijapur-586 101. … RESPONDENT/S
 [Smt. Anuradha M.Desai, Adv. for R2.
 Notice to R1 is dispensed with
 V.C.O. dated 09.07.2013.]

¶13

MFA 30547/13

¶14

¶15

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of
MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated
05.10.2012 passed in MVC No.112/2009 on the file
of 1st Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal No.VI, Bijapur, partly allowing
the claim petition and seeking for enhancement
of compensation.

¶16

This MFA coming on for Admission, this day
the Court delivered the following:

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

With consent of both the learned counsel,

¶19

the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶20

2. The appellant dissatisfied with the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the
injuries sustained by him, in a motor vehicle
accident, has approached this Court in the
appeal.

¶21

3. The facts reveal that it is on

¶22

18.12.2008 at about 9.30 a.m. the appellant was
proceeding on his bicycle. At that time, the
rider of the motorcycle bearing reg. No.KA-28/Q-
3233 rode the same in rash and negligent manner

¶23

MFA 30547/13

¶24

¶25

and thereby hit the bicycle. As a result, the
claimant suffered fracture of frontal bone and
also clavicle. Having suffered the disability,
approached the Tribunal for compensation. After
recording the evidence, the Tribunal has granted
a sum of Rs.85,200-00 with interest at 7% p.a.
Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation
awarded, the present appeal is filed.

¶26

4. I have heard learned counsel for both
the parties.

¶27

5. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the Tribunal has not awarded
compensation for loss of income, whereas learned
counsel for respondent No.2 submits that as the

¶28

appellant has not suffered any disability,
payment of compensation does not arise for
consideration at all.

¶29

6. The perusal of the material placed on
record reveals that the appellant suffered the
fracture of the frontal bone and also the right

¶30

MFA 30547/13

¶31

¶32

clavicle. Ex.P8 is the injury certificate.
P.W.3-Dr. S.S.Bedar, who on examination of the
appellant has issued the permanent disability
certificate assessing it at 40% to 45%. Anyhow,
the Tribunal has not considered this disability
for the reason that the evidence of the doctor
is not satisfactory. The perusal of the report
of the doctor and the evidence would reveal that
the appellant cannot hear properly and there is
restriction in the movement of the right

¶33

shoulder. Anyhow, the possibility of such
disability is natural in case when there is a
restriction in the movement of the shoulder due
to the fracture of clavicle. There is also
possibility that the appellant may not hear
properly due to the impact and fracture of
frontal bone. Considering this aspect of the
matter, I think, it would be just and proper to
assess the minimum disability at 5% and grant
the compensation for loss of future income.

¶34

MFA 30547/13

¶35

¶36

7. The appellant is a driver and as the
accident is of the year 2008, the income has to
be taken at Rs.4,000-00 p.m. He was aged about
45 years at the time of the accident and the
proper multiplier 16 has to be adopted with the
disability at 5% and income at Rs.4,000-00 p.m.

¶37

Rs.4,000 x 12 x 16 x 5 = Rs.38,400-00
 100

¶38

The loss of future income would be Rs.38,400-00.

¶39

The Tribunal has granted Rs.15,000-00 towards

¶40

loss of income during the period of treatment.
Hence, no enhancement is needed on this head.
The compensation awarded on the other heads is
just and proper. Hence, the appellant is
entitled to a further sum of Rs.38,400-00 with
interest at 6% p.a.

¶41

In the result, the appeal is allowed in
part. The appellant is entitled to an additional

¶42

MFA 30547/13

¶43

¶44

sum of Rs.38,400-00 with interest at 6% p.a.
from the date of the petition till its payment.

¶45

 Sd/-
 JUDGE.

¶46

Ksm*

Kisansingh S/O Parasuramsingh Hajeri v. Rachappa R Masareddy and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kisansingh S/O Parasuramsingh Hajeri v. Rachappa R Masareddy 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 Divl Controller Ksrtc Vs Sharanabasavaraj S/O Basavaraj Patil

Siddu @ Siddanna S/O Annarao Malagatti Vs Umadevi W/O Siddabasayya Hiremath Anr.

Kashappa S/O Kallappa Parshetty Vs Laximibai W/O Mallikarjun Jamkhande

Divisional Controller Vs Tousif S/O Maheboobsab Mujawar

Divisional Controller Ksrtc, Bijapur Divn Vs Shivanand S/O Revanasiddappa Walikar

Divisional Controller Ksrtcf Vs Prashant S/O Ramappa Kirshyal