Partly allowed

M S Jayaram v. the United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2015MFA/402/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a First Appeal against a Motor Vehicles Tribunal award, the court enhanced compensation, awarding additional Rs.1,10,000/- with interest for pain, suffering, loss of income, future medical expenses, attendant care, and amenities, totaling Rs.1,80,000/-.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till payment, bringing the total compensation to Rs. 1,80,000/-.

M S Jayaram Vs the United India Insurance Company Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2015)

¶1

MFA 402/13

¶2

��

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.402 OF 2013 [MV]

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M.S.JAYARAM S/O M K SATHYANARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.22, "SRI KANDA NILAYA" 1^ST "D" MAIN, GIRINAGAR 2^ND PHASE BANGALORE – 560 085. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI: N.S.MALLIKARJUNA, ADV)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO.212, SFS 407, ST. "A" MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE – 560 106.

¶12

MR SOMANNA, S/O KOTE ANJANAPPA, R/AT MEENUKUNTE, OPP: ITC FACTORY, DODDAJALA, BANGALORE – 560 110. ... RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI: ANUP SEETHARAMA RAO, ADV FOR SRI: B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADV FOR R1, SRI: V.CHANDRAPPA, ADV FOR R2)

¶14

MFA 402/13

¶15

��

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:19.02.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.6251/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL JUDGE, & XVIII ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

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

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The appellant dissatisfied with the amount of

¶20

compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the

¶21

injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident has filed this appeal, seeking enhancement.

¶22

The occurrence of the accident, rash and negligent driving, involvement of the vehicle and the liability is not in dispute. The appeal confines only to the quantum of compensation.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submits

¶24

that there is permanent disability and compensation towards the loss of income during the period laid-up is on meager side and no compensation has been

¶25

MFA 402/13

¶26

��

¶27

granted for loss of future earning. It is also his submission that the compensation on each of the heads is meager and seeks enhancement.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurer supports the impugned Judgment and Award and submits that just compensation has been granted by the Tribunal and there are no grounds to call for the impugned Judgment and Award.

¶29

As could be seen from the material placed

¶30

on record, particularly, the injury certificateEx.P6, the appellant has suffered communated fracture of left humerous upper end. He has also produced Ex.P8-OPD slip issued by the K.R.Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he has taken treatment for fixation of SS wire with light cure composite. He has suffered two fractures in the accident. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries, the pain, etc., I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to grant a sum of Rs.40,000-00 towards pain, suffering and mental agony.

¶31

MFA 402/13

¶32

��

¶33

Towards loss of income, taking into

¶34

consideration the fact that the appellant has been serving as an Engineer in Atotech India Limited and the probable period for taking treatment, I think it would be just and proper to grant a sum of Rs.1,00,000-00 i.e., 2 month’s salary towards loss of income during the period of treatment.

¶35

K-wire has been fixed at the time of surgery and the same has to be removed. The appellant has to incur future medical expenses. Therefore, he is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000-00 towards future medical expenses. The appellant has taken treatment at different hospitals and has to go for follow-up treatment. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, I think it is just and proper to grant a sum of Rs.10,000-00 towards food, nourishment, attendant and transportation.

¶36

Towards future loss of earning is concerned, it is relevant to note that the appellant has not produced any document to show that he has

¶37

MFA 402/13

¶38

��

¶39

discontinued the services. Hence, he is not

¶40

entitled to any compensation towards future loss of earning. But, anyhow, as the appellant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 10% as stated by the doctor, a sum of Rs.10,000-00 is awarded towards loss of amenities. Except these, the appellant is not entitled to any compensation on any other count. Therefore, total compensation payable to the appellant is as under:

¶41

PARTICULARS

¶42

Rs. Ps.

¶43

Pain, sufferings	…	40,000-00
and mental agony.
Loss of income
during the period
of treatment.	…	1,00,000-00
Future medical expenses.	…	20,000-00
Food, nourishment, attendant and
transportation.	…	10,000-00
Loss of amenities.	…	10,000-00
	TOTAL	1,80,000-00

¶44

MFA 402/13

¶45

��

¶46

Thereby, the total compensation payable would be Rs.1,80,000-00. Deducting the sum of Rs.70,000-00 awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs,1,10,000-00 in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶47

In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,10,000-00 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its payment in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Ksm*

M S Jayaram v. the United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Jayaram v. the United India Insurance Company Ltd.

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

Shivalingegowda Vs Smt. Sunitha G K

Kotha Venkatappa Vs Vijayalakshmi Getmenon

Smt. Varalakshmi Vs Krishnappa M

Shivamma Vs the Incharge Manager

Sathish Vs Basavaraju

C.N Manjula Vs Anilkumar T.J