Partly allowed

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

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2014MFA/32306/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a miscellaneous first appeal partly, enhancing motor accident compensation by directing the appellate authority to award an additional sum of Rs.96,600/- regarding future losses, pain and suffering, and treatment charges, with interest.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.96,600/- in addition to the tribunal's award with interest at 7.5% p.a.

Malingaraya S/O Shivanna Balabatti Vs Mohd. Imran… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

MFA NO.32306/2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA GULBARGA BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014

¶5

BEFORE:

¶6

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

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.32306 OF 2013 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

MALINGARAYYA S/O. SHIVANNA BALABATTI AGE : 24 YEARS, OCC :STAFF NURSE, NOW NIL R/O. C/O. HOUSE OF SHARANAGOUDA PATIL, OPP. MRMC COLLEGE, SEDAM ROAD, GULBARGA-585102

¶10

... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SANJEEV KUMAR PATIL, ADV.)

¶12

AND

¶13

MOHD. IMRAN AHMED S/O. MOHD. YOUSUF AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC : OWNER OF HERO HONDA, KARIZMA MOTOR CYCLE BEARING CHASSIS NO. MBLMC38EBAGMD1137 R/O. WES-36, 1^ST PHASE ADARSH NAGAR, GULBARGA-585101.

¶14

THE ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED DIVISIONAL OFFICE OPP. SBH BANK COURT ROAD NEAR TIMMAPURI CIRCLE,

¶15

MFA NO.32306/2013

¶16

¶17

GULBARGA, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER-585101.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. C.S. KALBURGI, ADV. FOR R2, V/O. DTD: 12.03.2014 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶20

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.07.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.96/2012 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT AT GULBARGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The appellant dissatisfied with the amount of

¶24

compensation awarded by the tribunal for the injuries sustained by him in the motor cycle accident has filed this appeal seeking enhancement.

¶25

The facts reveal that the appellant has

¶26

suffered the fracture of both bones of left lower

¶27

limb, in the accident that occurred on 19.03.2011,

¶28

due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle. Therefore, he was admitted in the hospital. He

¶29

MFA NO.32306/2013

¶30

¶31

suffered the disability hence, the claim petition was filed for compensation.

¶32

The tribunal after recording the evidence

¶33

has granted a sum of Rs.2,40,200/- as compensation with interest at 6% per annum. The appellant was dissatisfied with the compensation awarded. Hence, the present appeal is filed.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for both the

¶35

parties.

¶36

The point that arises for my consideration

¶37

is:

¶38

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

¶39

The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the assessment of income, compensation

¶40

for pain and suffering and mental agony, loss of income during treatment period, loss of amenities

¶41

MFA NO.32306/2013

¶42

¶43

and attendant charges have been granted on the lower side and he seeks enhancement.

¶44

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

¶45

insurer has supported the judgment and award of the tribunal and submits that the compensation granted is just and reasonable.

¶46

The appellant is a young person, aged about 23 years. He was working as a staff nurse. The tribunal has assessed the income at Rs.4,000/-. It is relevant to note that even for the accident of the year 2011, the Apex Court has assessed the income at Rs.5,250/- per month and it is just and proper to consider his income at Rs.5,250/- per month.

¶47

The disability assessed by the tribunal at 20% appears to be just and proper. The tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier 17 instead of 18.

¶48

MFA NO.32306/2013

¶49

¶50

Thereby, the compensation towards loss of

¶51

future earning come to (Rs.5,250x12x18x20%)

¶52

Rs.2,26,800/-. Deducting a sum of Rs.1,63,200/granted by the tribunal, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.63,600/- towards loss of future earnings.

¶53

For pain and suffering, the tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.10,000/- as the appellant has suffered two fractures. So, he is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- in addition to the amount awarded by the tribunal.

¶54

Only a sum of Rs.4,000/- has been granted towards loss of earning during treatment period, as the appellant has suffered the fracture of both bones and atleast 3 months rest require to heal up. Hence, he is entitled to Rs.11,000/- on the aforesaid head in addition to the amount awarded by the tribunal.

¶55

MFA NO.32306/2013

¶56

¶57

Only a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been granted towards loss of amenities. I think he is entitled to additional compensation of Rs.5,000/- on this head.

¶58

Towards attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges only a sum of Rs.3,000/- has been granted. Hence, he is entitled to another sum of Rs.2,000/on this head. The compensation awarded on other heads is just and reasonable. Thereby, the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation as follows:

¶59

Towards loss of future earnings Rs.63,600/Pain and suffering Rs.15,000/Loss of earning during treatment period Rs.11,000/Loss of amenities Rs. 5,000/-

¶60

Attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges Rs. 2,000/___________

¶61

Total Rs.96,600/-

¶62

Thus, the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.96,600/- in addition to the compensation

¶63

MFA NO.32306/2013

¶64

¶65

awarded by the tribunal. Hence, the point is

¶66

answered in the affirmative.

¶67

For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is

¶68

allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.96,600/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

Srt

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malingaraya S/O Shivanna Balabatti v. Mohd. Imran Ahmed S/Omohd. Yousuf 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 Divisional Manager Vs Mohammed Gouse @ Sameer S/O Late Mohd.Mushtaqand Anr.

The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Girish S/O Venkateshrao Ors.

Shantamma W/O Late Dattatraya Ors. Vs Manager, M/S Poineer Builders New Maruti Extention

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

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

Saleem S/O Babusaheb Chapparband Vs Ramanagouda S/O Chandarmappa Kavadimatti Anr.