Partly allowed

Bharama Ningappa Kundannavar, v. Dilip Mohan Shewale

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2017MFA/100001/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a First Appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act, the single judge enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant for loss of future income and loss of amenities, holding that a higher notional income and increased disability percentage justified a higher award of Rs.2,12,457/- with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.2,12,457/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim.

Bharama Ningappa Kundannavar, Vs Dilip Mohan Shewale — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

Miscellaneous First Appeal No.100001 of 2015 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. Bharama Ningappa Kundannavar, Age: 58 years, Occupation: Supplier in hotel, Resident of Hukkeri, Taluk: Hukkeri, District: Belgaum.

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

(By Sri. Harish S Maigur, Advocate.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Sri. Dilip Mohan Shewale, Age: Major, Occupation: Business, Resident of Soudalaga, Taluk: Chikkodi, District: Belgaum.

¶13

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Ramadev Galli, Belgaum. Police Issued by: National Insurance Company Limited, Ashok Nagar, Nippani.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(By Sri. A.G.Jadhar, Advocate for Respondent No.2, Respondent No.1 served)

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

This Miscellaneous First Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated: 5.8.2014 passed in MVC No. 1048 of 2013 on the file of the Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hukkeri, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶18

This appeal coming on for Admission this day, the court delivered the following:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for respondent no.2.

¶21

The appeal coming on for admission, is considered for final disposal having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶22

The appellant is before this court seeking enhancement of compensation. He had suffered three fractures as a result of the motor accident. He is a 62 year old man and had claimed the notional income at Rs.7,000/- whereas the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.4,500/-. The accident was of the year 2013. Therefore, the notional income that was generally adopted was in

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

a sum of Rs.7,000/- during the relevant period which ought to be applied.

¶25

Secondly, it is also pointed out that the loss of amenities is awarded at Rs.15,000/- when he had suffered disability to the extent of 60%. The loss of amenities correspondingly ought to have been awarded in a larger sum. The award towards the loss of income during the laid up period has been computed on the lower side having regard to the tribunal having adopted the notional income at Rs.4,500/-.

¶26

Consequently, if the income is taken at Rs.7,000/instead of Rs.4,500/-, the compensation towards the loss of future income as well as loss of income during the laid up period would correspondingly increase. The appellant is also entitled to another sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities’. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,12,457/- as against the award of the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.1,59,007/-. The compensation now awarded shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim till the date of

¶27

: 4 :

¶28

payment. The entire amount shall be released in favour of the appellant.

¶29

The appeal is allowed in part.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Bharama Ningappa Kundannavar, v. Dilip Mohan Shewale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharama Ningappa Kundannavar, v. Dilip Mohan Shewale

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

Bhimappa Ramappa Dasa Age 40 Years, Vs Govind Bandhu Jadhav Age Major, Occ Not Known

Sri. Venkatesh S/O Venkanagouda Rayanagoudar Vs Sri. Gadigeppa S/O Bhimappa Kanannavar

Rasoolbi S/O Fakirsab Yendigeri, Vs the Divisional Manager

Davalsab S/O Imamsab Hebasur Vs Mehaboobsab S/O Abdulkareem Khaji

Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs Sangappa S/O. Vasudev Surkod

Smt. Ratna W/O Sangappa Hoogar Vs Mallkarjun S/O Mahadevappa Ayatti