Partly allowed

Raosaheb Ramagouda Patil v. Appasab Ramagouda Patil

Karnataka HC1 Oct 2020MFA/103188/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, Dhawad Bench enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the Motor Accident Claimant for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident due to 50% permanent disability of the left lower limb.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed in part; the impugned judgment modified to enhance total compensation to Rs.3,72,403/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition.

Raosaheb Ramagouda Patil Vs Appasab Ramagouda Patil — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

MFA No.103188/2014

¶2

: 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

MFA NO.103188/2014 (MV)

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri. Raosaheb Ramagouda Patil, Age 33 years, Occ: Driver and Agriculture, now nil, R/o. Ankali, Tq. Hukkeri, Dist. Belgaum.

¶10

…Appellant

¶11

(By Smt. Geeta K.M. @ Pawar, Advocate)

¶12

And:

¶13

Shri. Appasab Ramagouda Patil, Age major, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Ankali, Tq. Hukkeri,

¶14

Dist. Belgaum. (Owner of the motor cycle No.KA-23/EA-9873)

¶15

The National Insurance Company Ltd.,

¶16

B,O-Ashok Nagar Nippani, Policy No.602603/31/12/6200001675 (Valid from 05.06.2012 to 04.06.2013) Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Ramdev Galli, Belgaum.

¶17

..Respondents

¶18

(Smt. Aruna R. Deshpande, Advocate for R2; R1-served)

¶19

MFA No.103188/2014

¶20

: 2 :

¶21

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V.Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 25.10.2014 passed in MVC No.2066/2013 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Belgaum, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶22

This MFA coming on for Admission, this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The appellant/claimant is before this Court aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 25.10.2014 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Belgaum (‘Tribunal’, for short) in MVC No.2066/2013

¶25

The occurrence of the accident and the coverage by the Insurance policy is not in dispute. Hence, the facts leading up to the accident and thereafter are not being adverted to.

¶26

MFA No.103188/2014

¶27

: 3 :

¶28

The Tribunal by way of above judgment has awarded a sum of Rs.2,50,723/- with interest @ 6% p.a. in favour of the appellant for injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 03.03.2013.

¶29

Heard. Admit.

¶30

With the consent of both the sides, the above appeal is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶31

The nature and occurrence of the accident, coverage of the offending vehicle by respondent-Insurance Company is neither in question nor in dispute.

¶32

The present appeal has been filed only seeking enhancement of compensation by the appellant who was the petitioner before the tribunal.

¶33

The Insurance Company has not filed any other appeal.

¶34

MFA No.103188/2014

¶35

: 4 :

¶36

The accident occurred on 03.03.2013 when the claimant is stated to be aged about 32 years. The claimant on account of the road traffic accident and as per the wound certificate, suffered from fracture of lower 1/3^rd left tibia bone which was required to be operated upon and two screws are inserted in medial malleolous of left ankle joint and two screws are inserted in left calcaneum bone and there is mal union and injured cannot do plantar flexion and dorsi flexion of left ankle. The treating Doctor has opined that the claimant had suffered from 50% of total permanent disability in respect of left lower limb.

¶37

The Tribunal awarded aforesaid amount on the following heads.

¶38

Sl.No.	Heads of accounts	Rupees (Rs.)
1	Loss of earning capacity	Rs.1,72,800/-
2	Medical expenses	Rs.72,923/-
3	Towards pain and sufferings, special diet, conveyance and attendant charges	Rs.5,000/-
	Total	Rs.2,50,723/-

¶39

MFA No.103188/2014

¶40

: 5 :

¶41

The appellant/claimant has preferred the present appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation contending that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are meager, insufficient, contrary to applicable guidelines. The compensation awarded under the different heads of account does not take into account the gravity and severity of the injuries suffered by the appellant. The appellant is therefore entitled to for higher compensation than that awarded by the Tribunal.

¶42

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondentInsurance Company contends that what has been awarded by the Tribunal is proper and correct. All the aspects that are required to be considered have been so considered by the Tribunal. The amounts awarded as compensation is more than sufficient and there are no further amounts which are required to be awarded and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶43

MFA No.103188/2014

¶44

: 6 :

¶45

Heard Smt. Geetha K.M. @ Pawar, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Smt. Aruna R. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent/Insurance Company and perused the papers.

¶46

14. PHYSICAL DISABILITY:

¶47

A perusal of all the documents indicates that the appellant has suffered from fracture of lower 1/3^rd left tibia bone which is required to be operated upon and two screws are inserted in medial malleolous of left ankle joint and two screws are inserted in left calcaneum bone and there is mal union and injured cannot do plantar flexion and dorsi flexion of left ankle. The treating Doctor has opined that the claimant had suffered from 50% of total permanent disability in respect of left lower limb, which is a grievous injury as per the wound certificate as also the deposition of treating doctor. The appellant is said to have suffered 50% physical disability as regards the limb where the

¶48

MFA No.103188/2014

¶49

: 7 :

¶50

injury has occurred. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the disability to be 15% for the whole body. I am of the considered view applying the thumb rule of 1/3^rd the appellant has suffered 17% of physical disability vis-à-vis the whole body.

¶51

15. MULTIPLIER:

¶52

The appellant is aged about 33 years as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the relevant multiplier applicable to the appellant would be ‘16’.

¶53

16. INCOME:

¶54

The appellant has not produced any documents relating to his income nor established the same. Therefore, in terms of notional income fixed for this purpose by the Lok-Adalath, for the year 2013, an income of Rs.7,000/- would have to be taken into consideration. In view of the above, calculation of loss of earnings would be:

¶55

Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 16 x 17/100 =2,28,480/-

¶56

MFA No.103188/2014

¶57

: 8 :

¶58

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on this head of account is Rs.1,72,800/- Hence, the compensation on this head of account stands enhanced by Rs.55,680/-

¶59

17. PAIN AND SUFFERINGS:

¶60

The appellant has suffered very grievous injury viz., from fracture of lower 1/3^rd left tibia bone which is required to be operated upon and two screws are inserted in medial malleolous of left ankle joint and two screws are inserted in left calcaneum bone and there is mal union and injured cannot do plantar flexion and dorsi flexion of left ankle. The treating Doctor has opined that the claimant had suffered from 50% of total permanent disability in respect of left lower limb and was hospitalized and underwent surgery. Hence, I am of the considered view that the appellant has suffered considerable pain during these days and as such, the compensation of Rs.5,000/-

¶61

MFA No.103188/2014

¶62

: 9 :

¶63

awarded is insufficient. The same is enhanced to

¶64

Rs.20,000/- on this head of account.

¶65

18. MEDICAL EXPENSES:

¶66

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.72,923/towards medical expenses. The said amount is being in terms of the bills produced and do not require any interference of this Court.

¶67

19. LOSS OF EARNINGS DURING THE LAID-UP PERIOD :

¶68

The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of earnings during the laid up period. Since the appellant has suffered grievous injury and he took treatment for a period of 5 days as in hospital as an inpatient, and the claimant would have laid up for at least three months after discharge from the Hospital, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant is entitled for loss of earning during the laid up period. Hence, I deem it proper to award a sum of Rs.21,000/-

¶69

MFA No.103188/2014

¶70

: 10 :

¶71

(Rs.7,000/- X 3 months) being the income multiplied

¶72

by the time the appellant was laid up, on this account.

¶73

20. LOSS OF AMENITIES:

¶74

The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of amenities. As the appellant has lost out on the aspects of a normal life due to the injury sustained, I am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. Hence, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of amenities.

¶75

Thus, in view of the above, the comparative table of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and by this

¶76

Court is under:

¶77

Sl. No	Heads of account	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court	Enhanced compensation
1	Loss of earning capacity	Rs.1,72,800/-	Rs.2,28,480/-	Rs.55,680/-
2	Medical expenses	Rs.72,923/-	Rs.72,923/-	0
3	Towards pain and sufferings, special diet, conveyance and attendant	Rs.5,000/-	Rs.20,000/-	Rs.15,000/-

¶78

MFA No.103188/2014

¶79

: 11 :

¶80

	charges
4	Loss of earnings during the laid- up period	0	Rs.21,000/-	Rs.21,000/-
6	Loss of amenities	0	Rs.30,000/-	Rs.30,000/-
	Total	Rs.2,50,723/-	Rs.3,72,403/-	Rs.1,21,680/-

¶81

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶82

ORDER

¶83

i. The appeal is partly allowed.

¶84

ii. The judgment and award of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Belgaum, in MVC No.2066/2013 dated 25.10.2014 is hereby modified. The appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,21,680/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.

¶85

*Svh/-

¶86

Sd/JUDGE

Raosaheb Ramagouda Patil v. Appasab Ramagouda Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raosaheb Ramagouda Patil v. Appasab Ramagouda Patil

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

Sri Channamallappa Shivappa Mulamuttal Vs the State of Karnataka

Renuka W/O Prakash Belankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Suvan Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka

Dinakar Vs the State of Karnataka

Naveen S/O K Karthakeyan Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H.M. Srinath Vs Sri. Muninagappa