Partly allowed

Susheelamma v. Venkatesha Reddy

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2015MFA/343/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the first appeal partially, enhancing the compensation awarded to the appellant for dental injuries sustained in a motor accident. The Court directed the respondents to pay an additional sum of Rs. 25,000 along with interest.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 25,000 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till payment.

Susheelamma Vs Venkatesha Reddy — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2015)

¶1

MFA ��

¶2

��

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.343 OF 2013 [MV]

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SUSHEELAMMA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O H.VEERAKYATHAPPA, R/O JEEVAGONDANAHALLY, DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI: PATEL D KAREGOWDA, ADV) AND:

¶10

VENKATESHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O A.KRISHNA REDDY, NO.88, KRISHNAREDDY LAYOUT, G.S.PALYA MAIN ROAD, E.CITY, BENGALURU.

¶11

UNIED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.2, I FLOOR, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,

¶12

MFA ��

¶13

��

¶14

MADIVLA, BENGALURU – 560 068. ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI: NISHANTH.A.V, ADV FOR R1, SRI: D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV FOR R2)

¶16

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.6.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.9/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT-13, MADHUGIRI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The appellant dissatisfied with quantum of

¶21

compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the

¶22

injuries sustained, has filed this appeal, seeking enhancement.

¶23

The occurrence of the accident, rash and

¶24

negligent driving, involvement of the vehicle and the liability is not in dispute, and the claim is confined only to quantum of compensation. The

¶25

MFA ��

¶26

��

¶27

appellant suffered loss of 3 teeth in addition to other simple injuries. The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.77,000-00 as compensation on all the heads. Compensation of Rs.40,000-00 has been granted for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries. Rs.35,000-00 has been granted towards loss of amenities. A sum of Rs.2,000-00 has been granted towards food, nourishment, etc. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded on these heads, the present appeal is filed.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the

¶29

parties.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant submits

¶31

that assessment of compensation is on the lower side, whereas learned counsel for the insurer supports the impugned Judgment and Award and submits that just compensation has been granted.

¶32

Ex.P6 is the injury certificate. Though it is contended that no loss to the teeth, the doctor

¶33

MFA ��

¶34

��

¶35

has opined that there is missing of maxillary, right central and lateral incisor and mandibular (right), lateral incisor. There is clear mention of 3 teeth having been missing and the other injuries referred to at Sl Nos.(a) to (g). Therefore, Ex.P6 itself reveals that the appellant, who is a woman, aged 45 years has lost the teeth at her age. Therefore, it is in this age, in the aforesaid circumstances, a sum of Rs.40,000-00 has been granted towards pain, suffering etc. and it appears to be reasonable. A sum of Rs.35,000-00 has been granted towards loss of amenities and a sum of Rs.2,000-00 has been granted towards food, nourishment, transportation etc. Once the teeth are lost due to the injuries sustained, it is necessary to replace the same. Taking into consideration the probable expenses for replacing the teeth by artificial teeth, I think it is proper to grant a sum of Rs.25,000-00 as additional compensation.

¶36

MFA ��

¶37

��

¶38

In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000-00 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its payment, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Ksm*

Susheelamma v. Venkatesha Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susheelamma v. Venkatesha Reddy

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

Shivamma Vs the Incharge Manager

M S Jayaram Vs the United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Sathish Vs Basavaraju

Mr T Hemanath Vs Sri Koosappa Gowda

Dugganna Gowda Vs Smt Annamma

Ramesha Vs the State by Tumkur Rural Police