Partly allowed

Hanamawwa W/O Yallappa Madamgeri, v. Kallappa S/O. Shrikant Kamble

Karnataka HC19 Aug 2017MFA/24399/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench allowed an appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act to enhance compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Court corrected the notional monthly income from `3,500 to `6,000 and adjusted the disability multiplier, ordering a total enhancement of `1,45,760.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and award are modified to enhance compensation by `1,45,760, raising the total to `5,66,860.

Hanamawwa W/O Yallappa Madamgeri, Vs Kallappa S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

M.F.A.No.24399/2013 (MV)

¶2

: 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24399/2013 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.HANAMAWWA, W/O. YALLAPPA MADAMGERI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE COOLIE (NOW NIL), R/O: HIDAKAL T.C-591107,TQ: RAIBAG, NOW AT C/O. SHRI. NAGAPPA FAKKIRAPPA HOSUR, R/O: ARAVALLI, TQ: BAILHONGAL-591102, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶10

... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR AND S. H.DODDAMANI, ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI.KALLAPPA S/O. SHRIKANT KAMBLE, AGE: MAJOR (CORRECT AGE NOT KNOWN) OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. AT: POST: HIDAKAL-591107, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REG. NO. KA-23/A-232)

¶14

THE GENERAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MAHADEV PLAZA, CTS NO: 10719, SY.NO. 1357/A, NEAR KOLHAPUR CIRCLE, NEHRU NAGAR, BELGAUM - 590 016, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶15

... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 – NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶17

M.F.A.No.24399/2013 (MV)

¶18

: 2 :

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24-03-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1950/2011 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BAILHONGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSTION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Though this appeal is coming on for admission, with the consent of counsel for both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶23

The appellant was the claimant before the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bailhongal (henceforth referred to as ‘The Tribunal’, for brevity), whose claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was allowed in part awarding a compensation of a sum of `4,21,100/- with interest thereupon. Seeking enhancement of the said quantum of compensation, the claimant has preferred this appeal.

¶24

The grounds taken up by the appellant/claimant

¶25

in her memorandum of appeal as well the argument of the

¶26

M.F.A.No.24399/2013 (MV)

¶27

: 3 :

¶28

learned counsel for the appellant is that, the Tribunal below has taken the income of the injured at a meager amount ignoring her evidence that she was earning a sum of `6,000/- per month by working as a coolie. This has resulted in awarding a meager compensation.

¶29

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent - Insurance Company in his argument submitted that, considering the circumstance of the case, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal below is reasonable, which warrants no interference at the hands of this Court.

¶30

The present appeal being the claimant’s appeal and the respondents having not preferred either crossobjection or a counter appeal, the question of occurrence of the accident on the date, time and place alleged by the claimant and also the alleged fault on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is not in dispute. Therefore, the question of occurrence of the accident and the alleged

¶31

M.F.A.No.24399/2013 (MV)

¶32

: 4 :

¶33

liability of the respondents to pay compensation to the injured claimant for the injuries sustained by her in the accident need not be re-analysed again. The only question that remains to be considered is about the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal below.

¶34

The Tribunal below has awarded the

¶35

compensation under the following heads and with the sums shown against them:

¶36

Amount( ` )

¶37

TowardsPain and suffering	80,000.00
Towards Medicine and Hospitalcharges	93,500.00
TowardsNourishment charges	4,000.00
Towards attendant and conveyance charges	12,000.00
Towards loss of income during treatment period	31,500.00
Towardsloss of futureincome	1,20,100.00
Towards loss of amenities and future unhappiness	60,000.00
Towards future medical expenses	20,000.00
Total	4,21,100.00

¶38

M.F.A.No.24399/2013 (MV)

¶39

: 5 :

¶40

According to the wound certificate and the

¶41

evidence of PW2, the injured is said to have suffered comminuted compound fracture of L/3 of right femur, compound fracture of right patella, compound comminuted fracture of right tibia/fibula. Considering the same, the Tribunal below has awarded a sum of `80,000/towards ‘pain and suffering’. The same being reasonable amount, I do not want to interfere in it.

¶42

The compensation awarded towards ‘Medicine and Hospital charges’, ‘Nourishment charges’, ‘Attendant and conveyance charges’, ‘Loss of amenities and future unhappiness’ and towards ‘future medical expenses’, are reasonable quantum when considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as such, they do not require any interference at the hands of this Court.

¶43

The claimant who was examined as PW1 has stated that, she was working as a coolie prior to the accident and was earning a sum of `6,000/- per month.

¶44

M.F.A.No.24399/2013 (MV)

¶45

: 6 :

¶46

In that view, she has not produced any document to prove

¶47

her alleged income. The Tribunal below has calculated her income at 3,500/- per month attributing only a reason that there was no document produced by her to prove her income. When considered the notional income that are being taken up by the Coordinate Benches in the relevant year 2011, the notional income would be 6,000/for a coolie working in the said year. As such, the income arrived at by the Tribunal below requires to be enhanced and fixed at 6,000/- per month. When the said income is taken, the quantum of compensation awarded towards ‘loss of income during treatment period’ requires to be enhanced. According to the Tribunal below, the injured was accepted to have remained absent from her work for a period of about nine months. Thus, she is entitled for a total compensation of 54,000/- under the head ‘loss of income during treatment period’. After deducting a sum of `31,500/- awarded by the Tribunal below under the said head, the claimant is entitled for an enhanced amount of

¶48

M.F.A.No.24399/2013 (MV)

¶49

: 7 :

¶50

` 22,500/- under the head ‘loss of income during treatment period’.

¶51

PW2, the doctor has deposed before the Tribunal below that he has examined the injured and assessed her physical disability at 80% to the right lower limb. The Tribunal below after giving reasons for non-acceptability of the said percentage of disability, has arrived at a conclusion confining the functional disability to the whole body of the claimant at 26%. I am convinced with the reason shown by the Tribunal below in that regard and as such, the functional disability of the injured/claimant is taken at 26%. Referring the medical records produced before it, the Tribunal below has observed that the medical records show her age as 45-50 years as on the date of accident. It applied 11 as the multiplier for the said age. However, for the said age group, the appropriate multiplier applicable would be 13. As such, with the said inputs, the quantum of compensation towards ‘loss of future income’ would be `6,000 x 12 x 13 x 26/100 =

¶52

M.F.A.No.24399/2013 (MV)

¶53

: 8 :

¶54

2,43,360/-. After deducting a sum of 1,20,100/-

¶55

awarded by the Tribunal below under the said head, the difference amount of ` 1,23,260/- would be the amount to

¶56

be enhanced under the head ‘loss of future income’.

¶57

Barring this, the appellant has not made out any

¶58

grounds for enhancement of compensation under any other heads.

¶59

Thus, in total, the claimant is entitled for an enhanced sum of `1,45,760/-. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

The appeal is allowed in part.

¶62

The judgment and award dated 24.03.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bailhongal, in MVC No.1950/2011 is modified to the extent that the compensation awarded at 4,21,100/- is enhanced by a sum of 1,45,760/- thus making the total amount of compensation at ` 5,66,860/-

¶63

M.F.A.No.24399/2013 (MV)

¶64

: 9 :

¶65

(Rupees Five Lakh Sixty Six Thousand Eight Hundred

¶66

Sixty Only).

¶67

The rest of the order of the Tribunal with respect to fixing the liability upon the respondents and directing the 2^nd respondent – Insurance Company to deposit the awarded amount, awarding the interest, its rate, terms regarding release of the amount awarded, shall remain unaltered.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

gab

Hanamawwa W/O Yallappa Madamgeri, v. Kallappa S/O. Shrikant Kamble

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanamawwa W/O Yallappa Madamgeri, v. Kallappa S/O. Shrikant Kamble

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

Kempanna Dundappa Bagewadi Vs Nashima W/O Hasanasab Kamate

Mallappa S/O Shiddappa Kajagar Vs Mehabubshah R Makandar

Sri.Shekar S/O Pandurang Patil Vs Sri.Satish

Krishan S/O Venkappa Arenad, Vs Yallappa Bharamappa Madiwalar

The Divisional Manager Vs Huligevva W/O Channappa

Sri.Devaraj S/O Uddand Nayak Vs Karunakar Nayar