Partly allowed

Dugganna Gowda v. Smt Annamma

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2015MFA/3565/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the motor accident first appeal in part, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for loss of future earning to Rs. 1,20,000 with interest, considering reduced disability and increased income.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is entitled to a further sum of Rs. 1,20,000 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition to be added to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Dugganna Gowda Vs Smt Annamma — 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.3565 OF 2014 [MV]

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DUGGANNA GOWDA S/O. ANNU GOWDA, AGED 47 YEARS, R/AT PIJINADY HOUSE, KOKKADA VILLAGE AND POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. PIN-574 230. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI: RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY.G., ADV) AND

¶10

SMT.ANNAMMA W/O. K.M JOSEPH, AGED 62 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.1-20, KONALU, KOPNALU VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT, PIN – 574 201.

¶11

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SALDNHA BUILDING, BRIDGE ROAD, BALMATTA, MANGALORE,

¶12

MFA ��

¶13

��

¶14

D.K.DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN – 575 001. ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI: RAVISH BENNI, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶16

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.01.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.678/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, M.A.C.T., MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The appellant dissatisfied with the quantum, has sought for enhancement of compensation for the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident.

¶21

The occurrence of the accident, rash and

¶22

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

¶23

MFA ��

¶24

��

¶25

The appellant has suffered fracture of temporal

¶26

bone and fracture of shaft of left Fibula. He has suffered the disability. The Tribunal has not considered it and granted a total sum of Rs.1,17,000-00 as compensation. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the

¶28

parties.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that assessment of the income, disability and grant of compensation on each of the heads is not proper and needs enhancement.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurer supports the impugned Judgment and Award and submits just compensation has been granted.

¶31

The perusal of the material placed on record reveals that the appellant has suffered 2 fractures and a sum of Rs.45,000-00 has been granted

¶32

MFA ��

¶33

��

¶34

towards pain and suffering. It is just and reasonable. On the basis of the medical bills produced, a sum of Rs.14,000-00 has been granted towards medicine and hospital charges and it appears to be proper. Towards attendant charges, conveyance, food and nourishment, only a sum of Rs.4,000-00 has been granted. The appellant was inpatient for 10 days in the hospital. Therefore, an additional sum of Rs.6,000-00 would be appropriate.

¶35

The appellant has suffered disability. The

¶36

doctor has assessed the same at 23% of the whole

¶37

body and the evidence of P.W.2-doctor and the disability certificate which has been produced at Ex.P8 would reveal that there is a decrease in the vision of both the eyes after the correction. There is a right minimal sensory neural hearing loss, left side-severe sensory neural hearing loss. In addition, the appellant has complex integrated functional disturbances. The doctor has stated that the appellant can carry out daily living activities

¶38

MFA ��

¶39

��

¶40

and ultimately accepted the disability at 23% of the whole body. It is true that P.W.2 is not the doctor who treated the appellant. It is not the law that it is only the treated doctor who has to assess the disability. The evidence of the untreated doctor could be accepted in toto and it cannot be rejected, merely because he has not treated the appellant.

¶41

That apart, the certificate is also signed by

¶42

the untreated doctor. Taking into consideration the nominal exaggeration that could be made by the doctor who has not treated the appellant and looking to the evidence of P.W.2, it is not proper to assess

¶43

the disability at 15% of the whole body. The accident is of the year 2011. The appellant has the avocation of labour contract. Even in the Lok Adalat, the income of a labourer will be considered at a sum of Rs.5,500-00 p.m. The Tribunal accepted his income at Rs.4,000-00 p.m. I deem it proper to assess the income at Rs.5,500-00 p.m. and the disability at 15% and the income at Rs.5,500-00,

¶44

MFA ��

¶45

��

¶46

applying the multiplier 13, the compensation payable towards loss of future earning would be;

¶47

Rs.5,500 x 12 x 13 x 15% = Rs.1,28,700-00

¶48

Hence, the appellant is entitled to a sum of

¶49

Ra.1,28,700-00 towards loss of future earning. The appellant has been granted a compensation of Rs.30,000-00 towards loss of amenities and future happiness. As the disability suffered is 15%, a sum of Rs.15,000-00 has been paid excess and it has to be adjusted in the head of compensation enhanced. The Tribunal has granted reasonable compensation towards loss of earning during the period of treatment. Thereby, additional compensation payable would be Rs.1,28,700 + Rs.6,000 – Rs.15,000-00 = Rs.1,19,700-00 rounded up-to Rs.1,20,000-00 with reasonable interest.

¶50

In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,20,000-00 with interest at 6% p.a. from the

¶51

MFA ��

¶52

��

¶53

date of the petition till its payment in addition to

¶54

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Ksm*

Dugganna Gowda v. Smt Annamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dugganna Gowda v. Smt Annamma

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

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

Susheelamma Vs Venkatesha Reddy

Ramesha Vs the State by Tumkur Rural Police