Partly allowed

Subbanna S/O Mudakappa v. the Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd.

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2014MFA/31245/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous first appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the appellant injured in a road accident, determining additional amounts for loss of future income, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other heads.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 53,000 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till payment.

Subbanna S/O Mudakappa Vs the Manager, Reliance… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

MFA 31245/09

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA GULBARGA BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014

¶5

BEFORE:

¶6

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

¶7

MISCELLANEOUSFIRSTAPPEALNo.31245OF2009[MV]

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Subbanna,
S/o. Mudakappa,
Age: 21 years,
Occ: Coolie,
R/o. Chinna Nayak Tanda,
Tq: Deodurga,
Dist: Raichur. … APPELLANT/S
 [By Sri. Basavaraj R. Math, Adv.]

¶10

AND:

¶11

1.The Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd.
Rectifier House-570,
Naigum Cross,
Wadala [W],
Mumbai-400 031,

¶12

Through its Branch Office,
3rd Floor, Aswin Plaza,
Thimmapur Circle,
Main Road,
GULBARGA-5875 104.

¶13

MFA 31245/09

¶14

¶15

2.Mohammed Javeed,
S/o. Mohammed Yusuf
Jamadar Munna,
Age: major,
Occ: Owner of Jeep No.KA-32/M-2482,
R/o. Ekhelli village,
Tq: Humnabad,
Dist: Bidar. … RESPONDENT/S

¶16

 [By Sri. Sudarshan M., Adv. for R1.
 R2 is served.]

¶17

***

¶18

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of
MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated
09.04.2009 passed in MVC No.566/2008 on the file
of the Member MFACT & Presiding Officer, Fast
Track Court-I, Raichur, partly allowing the
claim petition for compensation and seeking
enhancement of compensation.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

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

¶22

enhancement.

¶23

MFA 31245/09

¶24

¶25

2. The fact reveals that on 29.02.2008 at

¶26

about 6.30 p.m., when the appellant was

¶27

returning to his house on his bicycle, a jeep
bearing reg. No.KA 32/M-2482 driven in rash and
negligent manner, hit the bicycle and thereby
the appellant sustained grievous injuries. He
was admitted in the hospital and was treated for

¶28

fracture of left humerus. He suffered
disability. Consequently, he approached the
Tribunal claiming compensation for pain and
suffering, loss of income, etc.

¶29

On appearance of the respondents and filing

¶30

of the objections statement, evidence was
recorded by the Tribunal. The appellant was
examined as P.W.1, and a witness P.W.2. In their
evidence, documents Exs.P1 to 11 were marked.
The respondents examined a witness as R.W.1. In
his evidence, documents Exs.D1 and 2 were
marked.

¶31

MFA 31245/09

¶32

¶33

The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel

¶34

for the parties and on appreciation of the

¶35

material on record has granted total
compensation of Rs.1,24,400-00 with interest at
6% p.a. Dissatisfied with the amount of
compensation awarded, the appellant has

¶36

approached this Court in the appeal.

¶37

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

¶38

consideration is;

¶39

`Whether` `the`	`appel`	`lant`	`is`
`entitled` `to`	`the`	`enh`	`anced`
`compensation?` `If`	`so,`	`to`	`what`
`extent?`

¶40

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would

¶41

contend that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal by assessing the income at Rs.3,000-00

¶42

MFA 31245/09

¶43

¶44

p.m. and on the other heads is on lower side and
it requires enhancement.

¶45

On the other hand, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 has supported the Judgment and

¶46

Award of the Tribunal.

¶47

6. Admittedly, the accident occurred in
the year 2008. The Tribunal has taken into
consideration the income of the appellant at
Rs.3,000-00 p.m. Learned counsel for the
appellant placing reliance on the decision of
the Apex Court reported in 2011(4) T.A.C.
1(S.C.) [Ramchandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.];
submits that the income of the appellant be
taken at Rs.4,500-00 p.m. The principles laid-
down in the aforesaid decision does not apply to
the facts on hand for the sole reason that the
appellant in his application for compensation
has stated his income at Rs.4,000-00 p.m.

¶48

MFA 31245/09

¶49

¶50

Hence, I think, it is just and proper to
consider his income at Rs.4,000-00 p.m.

¶51

7. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier
of 16. The appellant was aged about 20 years at

¶52

the time of the accident and the proper
multiplier to be adopted would be 18. The
Tribunal assessed the disability at 10% though
learned counsel for the appellant submits that
it has to be enhanced to 15%. Considering the
evidence of the doctor-P.W.2, who has stated the
disability in between 10% to 15%, the Tribunal
has accepted the disability at 10% and has
rightly granted the same as no particulars
regarding the disability of each of the heads
have been narrated by the doctor in his
evidence. That apart, the doctor has not stated
about the disability of the particular limb.
Adopting the multiplier aforesaid to the income
at Rs.4,000-00 and the disability at 10%, the
appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.86,400-00
towards loss of future income:

¶53

MFA 31245/09

¶54

¶55

Rs.4,000 x 12 x 18 x 10 = Rs.86,400-00
 100

¶56

As the Tribunal has awarded a sum of

¶57

Rs.57,600-00, the appellant is entitled to a
further sum of Rs.28,800-00 on this head.
Considering his income at Rs.4,000-00 p.m. and
as the appellant was under treatment for about 3
months, though the Tribunal has granted a sum of
Rs.9,000-00 as compensation for loss of income
during the period of treatment, the appellant is
entitled to a further sum of Rs.3,000-00 p.m.
on this head.

¶58

8. For pain and suffering, the Tribunal has
granted only a sum of Rs.5,000-00, which is on
lower side as the appellant has suffered
fracture of left humerus. I think, it is just
and proper to grant a further sum of
Rs.10,000-00 on this head. So far as the
attendant charges, the Tribunal has granted
Rs.3,800-00. I think, it is just and proper to
grant a further sum of Rs.1,200-00. No

¶59

MFA 31245/09

¶60

¶61

compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal
for transportation, food, nourishment and loss
of amenities. I think, it would be just and
reasonable to grant a sum of Rs.5,000-00 towards
loss of amenities while another sum of
Rs.5,000-00 on all other heads. Thereby, the
appellant is entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.53,000-00 with interest at 6% p.a. from the

¶62

date of the petition till its payment.
Accordingly, the point is answered in
affirmative.

¶63

In the result, the appeal is allowed in
part. The appellant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.53,000-00 with interest at 6% p.a. from the
date of the petition till its payment in
addition to the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.

¶64

Sd/-
 JUDGE.

¶65

Ksm*

Subbanna S/O Mudakappa v. the Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subbanna S/O Mudakappa v. the Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Madivalappa

Gangabai W/O Shankar Shendagi and Ors. Vs Baburay S/O Sangappa Biradar and Anr.

Gopal S/O Shantappa Ankalikar @ Anakalagi Vs Baburay S/O Sangappa Biradar and Anr.

The Divisional Controller, Ksrtc Vs Shabbir S/O Dastagirsab Walikar

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Davalasab Rajesab Tamboli

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Mallappa