Partly allowed

Bandenawaz Chanmdsaheb @ Chandsab Jamkhandi v. Rahemansab Buransab Biradar

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2019MFA/21095/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed motor accident claims filed by two claimants challenging the compensation awarded by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The High Court enhanced the notional income, increased compensation for pain and suffering and attendant charges, and awarded loss of future earning capacity for one claimant.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.89,121 for one claimant and Rs.42,000 plus existing heads for the other; judgments of the Tribunal modified.

Bandenawaz Chanmdsaheb @ Chandsab Jamkhandi Vs Rahemansab… — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶5

MFA No.21095 OF 2012 (MV-I)

¶6

C/W MFA NO.21096 OF 2012

¶7

IN MFA NO.21095/2012

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

BANDENAWAZ CHANMDSAHEB @ CHANDSAB JAMKHANDI AGE: 46 YRS, OCC: LAUNDRY, PRESENTLY NIL R/O NEAR DURGA VIHAR, STATION ROAD, BAGALKOT, TQ. & DIST. BAGALKOT.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.ANAND.R.KOLLI, ADV.)

¶12

AND

¶13

RAHEMANSAB BURANSAB BIRADAR AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE A/R CAB BEARING NO.KA-29/8593 R/O NEAR A.F.ILKAL HOUSE, VINAYAK NAGAR, BAGALKOT.

¶14

THE MANAGER UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., A 201, CRYSTAL PLAZA OPP: INFINITI MALL, LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (WEST), MUMBAI-400058

¶15

... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.NAGARAJ C.KOLLORI, ADV. FOR R2 : R1-SD)

¶17

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:27.01.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.211/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER MACT-III, BAGALKOT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

IN MFA NO.21096/2012

¶20

BETWEEN

¶21

NOORSAB S/O IMAMSAB NARGUND AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: LAUNDRY PRESENTLY NIL, R/O NEAR NANGRANI HOSPITAL, OLD POST OFFICE, BAGALKOT, TQ. & DIST. BAGALKOT

¶22

... PETITIONER

¶23

(BY SRI. ANAND.R.KOLLI, ADV.)

¶24

AND

¶25

RAHEMANSAB BURANSAB BIRADAR AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE A/R CAB BEARING NO.KA-29/8593 R/O NEAR A.F.ILKAL HOUSE, VINAYAK NAGAR, BAGALKOT

¶26

THE MANAGER, UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., A 201, CRYSTAL PLAZA, OPP: INFINITI MALL, LINK ROAD, ANDHERI(WEST), MUMBAI-400058

¶27

... RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI.P.N.HOSAMANE, ADV. FOR R1) (SRI.NAGARAJ C.KOLLORI, ADV. FOR R2)

¶29

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:27.01.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.212/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER MACT-III, BAGALKOT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶30

¶31

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

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

These two appeals have filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 27.01.2012 passed in MVC Nos.211/2010 and 212/2010, since in both the cases common judgment and award has been passed, they are clubbed together.

¶34

Brief facts of the case are that the claimant in MVC No.211/2010 was riding motor cycle bearing No.KA29/Q-1946 on 15.10.2009 at about 5.45 p.m. from Navanagar to Bagalkot. The claimant in MVC

¶35

No.212/2010 was a pillion rider. When they came near Kerudi Hospital, Auto-Cab bearing No.KA-29/8593 came from opposite direction in high speed and dashed to the motor cycle of the petitioner. As a result, this claimant fell down along with pillion rider from motor cycle and sustained fracture. Both claimants are treated as an inpatient at Kerudi Hospital and they have undergone

¶36

¶37

surgery. After recovery from the injury, they have filed the claim petition before MACT, Belagavi.

¶38

To establish their claim claimants have examined five witnesses and got marked 76 documents and on the other hand, Insurance company has not examined any witnesses and marked only two documents. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.54,821/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. in MVC No.211/2010 and Rs.15,112/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. in MVC No.212/2010. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants are filed these appeals.

¶39

Sri.Ananda R. Kolli, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that at the time of accident, the claimants are earning Rs.5,000/- per month and Tribunal has not justified in taking Rs.3,000/- per month as notional income of the claimants.

¶40

¶41

Secondly, he has contended that due to the

¶42

accident claimant in MVC No.211/2010 has suffered the following grievous injuries.

¶43

Grade II muscles wasting left wrist joint,

¶44

20% movements restriction at left writ joint,

¶45

10% movements restriction at right wrist joint,

¶46

Pain at left wrist joint, grip strength reduced in left hand.

¶47

The Tribunal has not justified in granting only

¶48

Rs.17,000/- under the head pain and suffering. He further contended that in other heads also Tribunal has granted meager compensation.

¶49

He further contended that in MVC No.212/2010, even though Dr.H.R.Katti has assessed disability of 25%, the Tribunal has failed to consider the same. Hence, he sought for enhancement of the compensation.

¶50

Per contra, learned counsel for Insurance Company

¶51

Sri.Nagaraj C.Kollori has submitted that even though the claimants are claimed that they are earning Rs.5,000/-

¶52

¶53

per month, they have not produced any documents to establish the same. He further contended that in other heads are concerned, the Tribunal has granted a just and proper compensation. Hence, He sought for dismissal of the appeals.

¶54

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶55

Perused the records.

¶56

It is not in dispute that the claimants are suffered

¶57

injuries due to the accident occurred on 15.10.2009, due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Auto Cab bearing registration No.KA-29/8593. Even though the claimants are claimed that they were earning Rs.5,000/per month, the Tribunal is not justified by granting only Rs.3,000/- per month. In catena of decisions this Court while calculating the notional income has considered the chart prepared by the Lok Adalath for deciding the cases. As per the chart for the accident occurred in the year 2009, the notional income has been fixed as Rs.5,000/-.

¶58

¶59

Accordingly, notional income of the claimant has taken as Rs.5,000/- per month.

¶60

In MVC No.211/2010, the claimant has suffered the above said injuries. He has examined Dr.H.R.Katti as PW-

¶61

In his deposition, he has specifically stated the following deformities:

¶62

Grade II muscles wasting left wrist joint,

¶63

20% movements restriction at left writ joint,

¶64

10% movements restriction at right wrist joint,

¶65

Pain at left wrist joint, grip strength reduced in left hand.

¶66

Inspite of that Tribunal has not justified in granting Rs.17,000/- under the head pain and suffering and Rs.500/- for diet-charges and nourishment. In view of the above, the compensation in the category of pain and suffering has been enhanced from Rs.17,000/- to Rs.25,000/- and in the category of attendant and diet charges is concerned, it has been enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.10,000/-. In this case, even though the

¶67

¶68

claimant has examined Sri.H.R.Katti as PW-4 for assessing disability, he has specifically stated that there is a disability of 25%. The tribunal has not justified in granting any compensation in the category of loss of future earnings. In view of the documents produced by the claimants and deposition of the doctor H.R.Katti as Pw-4, this Court is of the considered opinion that disability may be assessed at 15%. Accordingly, compensation is re-determined as follows.

¶69

Accordingly, compensation for claimant in MVC No.211/2010 has been granted as follows: 5000x14x12x5/100=42,000/-. For loss of future earning capacity in the category of pain and suffering, the compensation granted has been enhanced from Rs.17,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. The compensation in the category of medical bill is concerned Rs.12,121/- is retained and compensation in the category of attendant and diet charges is enhanced from Rs.500/to Rs.10,000/-. In all total compensation of Rs.89,121/- is awarded to the claimant in MVC No.211/2010.

¶70

¶71

In MVC No.212/2010 is concerned the

¶72

compensation has been re-determined as follows:

¶73

5000x12x5x14/100=42000/-.

¶74

The claimant is entitled to Rs.42,000/- towards loss

¶75

of earning capacity.

¶76

In other categories are concerned, the

¶77

compensation granted by the Tribunal is confirmed.

¶78

Accordingly, appeals are allowed in part. Judgment

¶79

and award passed by the Tribunal is modified as stated above.

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

¶81

Hmb

Bandenawaz Chanmdsaheb @ Chandsab Jamkhandi v. Rahemansab Buransab Biradar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandenawaz Chanmdsaheb @ Chandsab Jamkhandi v. Rahemansab Buransab Biradar

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

The General Manager Ksrtc, Vs Veerendra S/O Fakirappa Totagi

Shri. Rajayogi Enterprises Vs the Mysore Minerals Limited

Shri. Appa Balu Bhui Vs Shri. Uttam Maruti Bhui

The State of Karnataka Vs Amaranath Sangayya Math

Hanamanth Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Noorsab S/O Imamsab Nargund Vs Rahemansab Buransab Biradar