Partly allowed

Shivamma v. the Incharge Manager

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2015MFA/954/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the appellant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. It varied the award from the Tribunal's figure by calculating disability at 8% instead of negligible, granting Rs. 1,58,160 total covering future earnings, medical expenses, and other heads.

What did the court decide?

Modified the judgment and award, granting total compensation of Rs. 1,58,160 with interest at 6% p.a., excluding interest for 238 days of appeal delay.

Shivamma Vs the Incharge Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

MFA No.954/2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.954/2014 (MV)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SHIVAMMA, W/O PUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT PUTTAHEGGADEVALASE-VG, MARALAVADI, KANAKAPURA TQ, RAMANAGAR DIST. (BY SRI P.SURESH, ADV.) AND:

¶7

... APPELLANT

¶8

THE INCHARGE MANAGER, M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANC CO. LTD., NO.6, 7^TH MAIN, ABOVE FOOD WORLD, 7^TH MAIN, KORAMANAGALA, BANGALORE-560034.

¶9

H.D.CHIDANANDA, S/O DURGAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO. 9, SIDDARTHA COLONY, MADIWALA, BANGALORE-560068.

¶10

D.S.NAGARAJU, S/O SHANKARAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE,

¶11

¶12

MFA No.954/2014

¶13

R/AT NO. 233, DOMMASANDRA, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DIST.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI M.S.SRIRAM, ADV. FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 DISPENSED WITH)

¶16

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 6.3.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO. 766/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XIX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE (SCCH.NO.19), 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 compensation awarded for the injuries sustained by her, has filed this appeal seeking enhancement.

¶20

Occurrence of accident, rash and negligent

¶21

driving, involvement of the vehicle and liability are not in dispute. The appeal is confined to the quantum of compensation.

¶22

The appellant has suffered the fracture of

¶23

L-5 vertebra as per Ex.P6-injury certificate. PW.2-

¶24

doctor assessed the disability at 10% in the Spine.

¶25

¶26

MFA No.954/2014

¶27

The Tribunal has opined that the disability is negligible and has not granted any compensation towards ‘loss of future earnings’. A global compensation of Rs.15,000/- has been granted by the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal has been filed for enhancement.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant submits

¶29

that there is permanent disability and compensation on each of the heads is not granted. He submits that compensation awarded is on the lower side. Hence, he seeks for enhancement of compensation.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurer supports the judgment and award and submits that just compensation has been granted.

¶31

As the appellant has suffered fracture of L-5 vertebra and suffered disability to an extent of 10%, the Tribunal has ignored the disability on the ground that 1/3^rd of the disability aforesaid would be negligible i.e., 3%. The principle to calculate

¶32

¶33

MFA No.954/2014

¶34

the disability is 1/3^rd disability of the particular limb and not to the spine. Hence, taking into consideration that the appellant has suffered fracture and the evidence of PW.2 and giving margin to the exaggeration of disability, the permanent disability could be assessed at 8%.

¶35

The appellant was a coolie. The accident

¶36

occurred in the year 2011. Generally a sum of Rs.5,500/- to Rs.6,500/- is considered as income in the Lok-Adalat for such a person. It is proper to consider Rs.6,000/per month. Therefore, the compensation payable towards ‘loss of future

¶37

earnings’ would be:

¶38

Rs.6,000/- x 12 x 16 x 8/100 = Rs.92,160/-

¶39

The appellant has suffered pain and mental

¶40

agony. Looking to the nature of injuries sustained, it is proper to grant Rs.25,000/- towards ‘pain and sufferings’.

¶41

¶42

MFA No.954/2014

¶43

With the fracture, she could not have

¶44

joined to her duty for atleast three months. Hence, she is entitled to Rs.18,000/- towards ‘loss of income during laid up period’. As she suffered disability to an extent of 8%, Rs.8,000/- would be proper towards ‘loss of amenities’.

¶45

Towards ‘medical expenses’, no bills have been produced but only prescriptions have been placed on record. Taking into consideration the period of treatment and expenses to be incurred for the injuries sustained by her, it would be proper to grant Rs.10,000/- on this head.

¶46

Towards ‘food, nourishment and attendance charges’ etc., a sum of Rs.5,000/- would be reasonable. Thereby, the total compensation payable to the appellant is as under:

¶47

Sl.No.	HEADS	Rs.
01.	Pain and Sufferings	25,000
02.	Loss of future earnings	92,160
03.	Loss of amenities	8,000

¶48

¶49

MFA No.954/2014

¶50

04.	Medical expenses	10,000
05.	Loss of income during laid up period.	18,000
06.	Towards food, nourishment & attendance charges etc.	5,000
	Total	1,58,160

¶51

The appellant is entitled for the aforesaid sum with interest, excluding interest for the delayed period.

¶52

Consequently, the appeal is allowed-inpart. The judgment and award are modified to the aforesaid extent. The appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,58,160/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its payment, excluding interest for 238 days in filing the appeal.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Shivamma v. the Incharge Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivamma v. the Incharge Manager

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

M S Jayaram Vs the United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Sathish Vs Basavaraju

C.N Manjula Vs Anilkumar T.J