Partly allowed

Kumar Aditya S/O Kallappa Palekar v. Ravi S/O Jagannath Upari

Karnataka HC17 Aug 2017MFA/24582/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This motor vehicle accident claim appeal sought enhancement of compensation. The Court modified the Tribunal's award, enhancing the total compensation by ₹70,000 to reach ₹1,92,000 for pain, suffering, medical expenses, future earnings, and future disability, while leaving liability and interest orders unaltered.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced total compensation from `1,22,000 to `1,92,000 (an increase of `70,000) as detailed in the order.

Kumar Aditya S/O Kallappa Palekar Vs Ravi S/O… — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

M.F.A.No.24582/2013

¶2

: 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

M.F.A. NO.24582/2013 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KUMAR ADITYA S/O KALLAPPA PALEKAR, AGE: 09 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, NOW NIL, R/O VAZE GALLI, VADA GAON, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶10

SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS MINOR GUARDIAN NATURAL FATHER, KALLAPPA S/O CHANGAPPA PALEKAR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O VAZE GALLI, VADAGAON, DIST: BELGAUM. ... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI.HANAMANT R LATUR, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI RAVI S/O JAGANNATH UPARI, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O H.NO.81, KALMESHWAR ROAD, VADAGAON, BELGAUM.

¶14

THE MANAGER,

¶15

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, HAVING ITS OFFICE NEAR RPC CORNER, KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELGAUM.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH, SRI.S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADV. FOR R2)

M.F.A.No.24582/2013

: 2 :

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.06.2013, PASSED IN MVC NO.1570/2012, ON THE FILE OF II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal though has been listed for admission, however, with the consent from both side the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶25

The claimant in the Tribunal below has preferred this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to him under the judgment and award dated 29.06.2013 passed by the II-Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum (henceforth referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) in MVC No.1570/2012.

¶26

The appellant in his memorandum of appeal has taken a contention that the quantum of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings due to disability

¶27

M.F.A.No.24582/2013

¶28

: 3 :

¶29

is meager, so also the compensation awarded under the

¶30

head of pain and suffering.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant in his argument while reiterating the grounds taken up in the memorandum of appeal also submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of future medical expenses is meager amount. It was further, submitted that the Tribunal below ought to have considered the expenses incurred by the claimant towards nourishment and attendant charges and other incidental charges.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company in his argument submitted that, the Tribunal below has awarded the compensation after considering the matter from all angles, as such, the circumstance does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.

¶33

The Tribunal below has awarded the

¶34

compensation under the following heads with the sum shown against them:

¶35

M.F.A.No.24582/2013

¶36

: 4 :

¶37

		Amount(`)
1. Pain and suffering	s	30,000-00
2. Medical and	other incidental	23,000-00
Expenses
3. Loss of future Disability	earnings due to	33,750-00
4. Loss of amen	ities and future	20,000-00
Unhappiness
5. Futuremedicalex	penses	15,000-00
	Total	1,21,750-00
	Rounded off to	1,22,000-00

¶38

Learned counsels produced copies of the exhibits marked in this matter for perusal. A perusal of the wound certificate at Ex.P.10, discharge card at Ex.P.13 shows that in the accident, the injured had sustained fracture of right tibia at its middle 1/3^rd and fracture of left radius and ulna at their middle 1/3^rd . Thus, there are three major fractures to three different bones. Even after observing about the nature of injuries, the Tribunal below has awarded a compensation of a sum of `30,000/towards ‘pain and suffering’. As such, I am of the view that, in

¶39

the circumstances of the case and more particularly for three

¶40

M.F.A.No.24582/2013

¶41

: 5 :

¶42

major fractures to three important bones of the limbs of the minor boy, the quantum of compensation deserves to

¶43

be enhanced by another sum of ` 25,000/- .

¶44

After making observation that the medical bills produced by the claimant at Ex.P.15 comes to 19,547/-, the Tribunal below considered the expenses that might have incurred towards attendance during the hospitalization period of the injured person and has awarded a total compensation of a sum of 23,000/towards ‘medical expenses and other incidental expenses’. However, considering the total immovability of the injured for a considerable period due to the three major fractures sustained by him, he must have been attended to by an attendant for a considerable period, as such, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below at 23,000/deserves to be enhanced by another sum of ** 5,000/-** .

¶45

Towards ‘future medical expenses’, the Tribunal

¶46

below has awarded a compensation of a sum of `15,000/-.

¶47

M.F.A.No.24582/2013

¶48

: 6 :

¶49

However, the evidence of PW.2-Dr.Annasaheb shows that during the surgery conducted on 28.03.2012 CR L-rod fixation was done under general anesthesia upon the claimant. The said application implanted in the body is requires to be removed. As such, the ‘future medical expenses’ awarded by the Tribunal below appears to be marginally on lower side. Thus, by a compensation of ` 10,000/- under the said head is required to be enhanced.

¶50

Towards ‘loss of future earning due to disability’, the Tribunal below has awarded a sum of `33,750/- after taking the alleged disability at 15% to the whole body. Since, the injured was a boy aged about 8 years and the doctor who was examined as PW.2 has not explained as to how the alleged disability would affect his future income, I am of the view that the percentage of disability arrived at by the Tribunal below need not be enhanced further. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the

¶51

M.F.A.No.24582/2013

¶52

: 7 :

¶53

case and the nature of the injuries, the quantum of compensation awarded under the said head deserves to be enhanced by another sum of ` 30,000/- .

¶54

Barring the above, the appellant has not made out any grounds for enhancement of compensation under any other heads. Thus, the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation by a sum of 70,000/-, which is in addition to the compensation of 1,22,000/awarded by the Tribunal below.

¶55

11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

The appeal is allowed in part.

¶58

The judgment and award passed by the II-Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum, in MVC No.1570/2012 dated 29.06.2013, is modified to the extent that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below at 1,22,000/- is enhanced by a sum of 70,000/- (Rupees

¶59

M.F.A.No.24582/2013

¶60

: 8 :

¶61

Seventy Thousand Only), thus fixing the total

¶62

compensation at `1,92,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Two Thousand only).

¶63

The rest of the order of the Tribunal below with respect to fixing the liability upon the respondents and depositing the awarded amount, awarding the interest, its rate, terms regarding release of the amount awarded, shall remain unaltered.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

Kumar Aditya S/O Kallappa Palekar v. Ravi S/O Jagannath Upari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar Aditya S/O Kallappa Palekar v. Ravi S/O Jagannath Upari

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

Prabhudev S/O. Sanna Basappa Bisanalli Vs Virupaxappa S/O. Huchappa Hulagi

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Prameela, W/O. Santosh Netrekar

Sri.Yallappa Shivappa Sajali, Vs Sri.Ashok Ballappa Naik

Reliance General Insurance Company Cover Vs Parashuram Siddappa Malagi

Pundalik S/O.Noorandar Lamani Vs Anand S/O. Venkappa Lamani

Devadas Vasu Gunagi Vs the Divisional Controller