Partly allowed

Minor Muttappa v. Vyshnavi, Anand Project Private Ltd.

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2020MFA/100967/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident appeals allowed in part enhancing compensation. The High Court modified the award by the Claims Tribunal, directing the insurer to deposit Rs. 3,50,000 as just compensation for marriage prospects and artificial limb for a minor victim with 80% disability, along with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 3,50,000 payable at 6% per annum; claimant entitled to artificial limb expenses; insurer directed to deposit amount within six weeks.

Minor Muttappa Vs Vyshnavi, Anand Project Private Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH 2020

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.I.ARUN M.F.A. NO.100967/2014 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

MINOR MUTTAPPA

¶9

AGE: 15 YEARS, REP. BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SMT. RAMA LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE RAMANJINEYALU, RESI:31^ST WARD, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, HOSPET, NOW R/O: BELAGAL CROSS, BALLARI

¶10

... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY MISS. SOUBHAGYA S. VAKKUND, ADV. FOR SRI. Y LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADV.)

¶12

AND

¶13

VYSHNAVI, ANAND PROJECT PRIVATE LTD., NO-264, W.NO.4, HOTEL SHIVANANDA COMPLEX, COLLEGE ROAD, HOSPET

¶14

THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, YELAMANCHALI COMPLEX, 2^ND FLOOR, STATION ROAD, HOSPET

¶15

... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. J. BASAVARAJ, ADV. FOR R1, SMT. SHARMILA PATIL, ADV. FOR R2)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.03.2013, PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.404/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 5^TH MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT BALLARI PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, B.A.PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

: 2 :

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and award passed by the 5^th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ballari in M.V.C. No.404/2011 dated 30.03.2013.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶23

Gist of the case is that on 10.09.2010 at about 07:20 a.m. when the appellant was brining water, the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA35/A-2815 drew the same in a rash and negligent manner and while taking reverse of the said lorry, dashed against the minor appellant. As a result of the same, he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was taken to the Government Hospital, Hospet. Later he was shifted to VIMS Hospital, Ballari and there his right leg up to knee was amputed. For having suffered the injuries, he filed the claim petition. After service of the notice, respondents appeared and filed their objections, denying the contents, but however, admitted the insurance.

¶24

: 3 :

¶25

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation which has been awarded on various heads is on the lower side. Since there is amputation of right leg, it is her submission that the Trial Court has not awarded any compensation towards the marriage prospects and even if the appellant wants to with an artificial limb and in order to purchase the same, atleast he requires a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is her further submission that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of future income. On these grounds, she prayed to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation.

¶26

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company vehemently argued and submitted that she has already satisfied the compensation which has been awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded under various heads is exorbitant. It is her further submission that the appellant – claimant has not produced any material to show actual loss of income or future income. Taking into consideration the said facts, the Tribunal has awarded just compensation and there are no

¶27

: 4 :

¶28

other good grounds to enhance the compensation. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶29

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records including the lower Court records.

¶30

It is not in dispute with regard to the accident in question and the vehicle involved being insured with the respondent insurer. As could be seen from the wound certificate and the evidence of P.W.2, the appellant – claimant has suffered with injury to his right lower limb and subsequently, the same has been amputed up to knee level and he has issued the disability certificate stating that he has suffered with 80% disability. The Tribunal after taking into consideration, has awarded the compensation as mentioned below.

¶31

Sl. No.	Heads	Amount
1	For pain and sufferings	Rs.1,00,000/-
2	Towards medical expenses	Rs.5,000/-
3	Towards loss of amenities and discomfort in life, due to amputation of the right leg	Rs.4,00,000/-
4	Food, nutrition and attendant charges, conveyance	Rs.30,000/-
	Total	Rs.5,35,000/-

¶32

: 5 :

¶33

Though the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be on the higher side, but the Tribunal has not kept into view the aspect of the marriage prospects which the appellant – claimant is going to suffer. As on the date of the accident, the appellant was aged about 12 years and it is brought to the notice of this Court that because of the accidental injuries, he discontinued his studies. In that light, if another sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is awarded, it is considered to be a just compensation. If the appellant has to move freely and properly, as amputation is up to knee level, in that light, he requires an artificial limb, with the help of which he can make movement as to his own convenience. The Trial Court has also not looked into this aspect. In that light, if the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded, it will meet the ends of justice. In that light, we are of the opinion that if an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- is awarded, it will be the just and reasonable compensation. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶36

: 6 :

¶37

(ii) The appellant – claimant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.3,50,000/at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶38

(iii) The judgment and award passed by the 5^th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ballari in M.V.C. No.404/2011 dated 30.03.2012 is hereby modified, as indicated above.

¶39

(iv) The respondent – insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with up to date interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment of this Court.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Rsh

Minor Muttappa v. Vyshnavi, Anand Project Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minor Muttappa v. Vyshnavi, Anand Project Private Ltd.

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

Kariyappa Bhimappa Menasindi Vs Manjunath Kariyappa Mensaindi

Kumar Rakshak S/O. Rajendra Vs Shashidhar Hanumanth Zendennavar

Sri.Parasuram Vs Sri.Shirajsab

Smt.Sudha W/O Madhukar Jamakhandi Vs the State of Karnataka

T. Nagaraj S/O Lingappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Dhareppa S/O. Basappa Mudhol Vs M/S. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.