Partly allowed

Sri. Rajanna v. Sri. Venkatesh. H. T.

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2020MFA/4700/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal from Rs.3,92,300/- to Rs.7,32,000/- by reassessing disability at 70%, correcting monthly income, and augmenting heads for pain, suffering, and future expenses.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs.7,32,000/- with 6% interest; insurance company directed to deposit amount within 90 days.

Sri. Rajanna Vs Sri. Venkatesh. H. T. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

M.F.A.No.4700/2019 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI.RAJANNA S/O PATEL CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS EARLIER RESIDENT OF YELECHAGAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI H.N.PURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF CHANNAPATNA LAYOUT HASSAN CITY, HASSAN-573 201. ...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.AMRUTHESH.C., ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

SRI.VENKATESH H.T. S/O. THIMMEGOWDA.H.S. MAJOR, R/AT HENTAGERE KOPLU VILLAGE ARKALGUDU TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102.

¶13

THE BRANCH MANAGER UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., PLOT No.EI-94, M.I.D.C. INDUSTRIAL AREA

¶14

¶15

NAVI MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA-400 710. …RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC No.1206/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 23.11.2018 passed in MVC No.1206/2017 by the II Addl. Sr. Civil Judge and MACT, Hassan (‘Tribunal’ for short].

¶21

The claimant instituted the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ['Act'

¶22

for short] claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident which occurred on 27.2.2017.

¶23

¶24

It was averred in the claim petition that on 27.2.2017 at about 12.30 p.m., while the claimant was riding his TVS Bike bearing Reg. No.KA-13-AX-9118, on H.N.Pura-Channarayapatna road, Ganjevu cross, the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-13-M-8298 [offending vehicle] has driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to his vehicle due to which the claimant sustained grievous injuries and has taken first aid treatment at Government hospital, Holenarasipura and further as an inpatient at Mangala Hospital, Hassan. His right leg being fully crushed, it was amputated. The claimant has incurred huge expenses towards the medical treatment. It was contended that the claimant was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.25,000/per month from his agriculture and labour work. Owing to the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question, he is suffering from loss of income besides the pain and agony etc.,

¶25

¶26

Pursuant to the notice issued by the

¶27

Tribunal, the insurer as well as the owner of the offending vehicle appeared through their learned counsel and filed their statement of objections.

¶28

The owner of the vehicle contended that the

¶29

vehicle was duly insured, liability, if any, has to be discharged by the insurer indemnifying the owner. The insurer filed the written statement denying the petition averments.

¶30

On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and answered partly allowing the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.3,92,300/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶31

Being aggrieved, the claimant has preferred the present appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

¶32

- 5 -

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellant argued

¶34

that the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. The Tribunal has failed to consider the income of the deceased as per the material evidence placed on record. The Tribunal determined the monthly income at Rs.9,000/- notionally, which is unjustifiable. The disability determined by the Tribunal at 40% is not in conformity with the grievous injuries sustained by him. The doctor who was examined as PW-2 has assessed the disability at 80% to the whole body. However, the Tribunal has ignored the same while assessing the disability. It was further argued that the compensation awarded under different heads is meager. Accordingly, sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶35

Learned counsel further argued that the multiplier of 5 adopted by the Tribunal determining the age of the claimant as 68 years is totally erroneous. Referring to the copy of the Aadhar card now proposed

¶36

- 6 -

¶37

to be placed on record along with I.A.1/19, submitted that his year of birth is shown as 1958 in the Aadhar card and the same has to be considered for determining the loss of future income.

¶38

Learned counsel for the insurer justifying

¶39

the impugned judgment and award argued that the Tribunal has rightly considered the age of the claimant. Ex.P21 Election I.D., filed by the claimant himself discloses his year of birth as 1949. It was submitted that the income as well as the disability determined by the Tribunal is based on the oral and documentary evidence and the same requires to be confirmed.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is evident that the claimant has sustained grievous injuries in the accident in question. PW-2, the doctor has assessed the disability to an extent of 80% to the whole body in view

¶41

of the amputation of the right leg above knee.

¶42

¶43

Considering the age of the claimant as 68 years, the Tribunal has determined the loss of future income, applying the multiplier of 5, determining the disability of 40%. Even considering Schedule to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, 70% would be the permanent physical disability in case of amputation of leg above knee. Considering the same, we determine the disability at 70% to the whole body.

¶44

Learned counsel for the claimant has

¶45

vehemently argued that the age of the deceased has been wrongly taken as 68 years. The same deserves to be rejected for the reason that the claimant himself in the cross examination has admitted that as per Ex.P21, the Election I.D, produced by the claimant himself, his date of birth is 1949. Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal in this regard.

¶46

¶47

However, the monthly income determined by

¶48

the Tribunal requires to be enhanced considering

¶49

the date of the accident, which would be Rs.11,000/- per month. Applying the same, loss of future income is reckoned which comes to Rs.4,62,000/- (Rs.11,000 x 12 x 5 x 70%). The claimant is entitled to Rs.33,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period (Rs.11,000 x 3).

¶50

We find it just and proper to enhance

¶51

the compensation awarded under the head pain

¶52

and suffering to Rs.1,00,000/- as against Rs.70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. It is perspicuous that the claimant has to depend on the support system for the rest of his life due to the loss of his right leg and must take constant follow up treatment. Hence, we deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses. As per Ex.P25, the claimant has

¶53

¶54

incurred medical expenses approximately to the extent of Rs.10,550/-. Considering the totality of circumstances, we award a sum of Rs.12,000/towards medical expenses. In all other respects, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal remains undisturbed. The compensation is re-assessed as

¶55

under:

¶56

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount[in Rs.]
1.	Painand suffering	1,00,000
2.	Medicalexpenses	12,000
3.	Food, attendant and conveyance charges	25,000
4.	Loss of income during laid up period	33,000
5.	Futureloss of income	4,62,000
6.	Loss ofamenitiesin life	50,000
7.	Futuremedicalexpenses	50,000
	Total	7,32,000

¶57

The claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.7,32,000/- as against Rs.3,92,300/with 6% interest on the enhanced compensation from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶58

Hence, the following:

¶59

- 10 -

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.7,32,000/(Rupees Seven Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand only) as against Rs.3,92,300/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of the claim petition till its realization. iii) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability and disbursement remains intact.

¶62

iv) The insurance company shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.

¶63

11 -

¶64

v) The modified compensation amount shall be disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal. vi) Draw modified award accordingly. vii) All pending I.As. stand disposed of.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

Dvr:

Sri. Rajanna v. Sri. Venkatesh. H. T.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Rajanna v. Sri. Venkatesh. H. T.

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

Mysore Urban Vs Smt Kausalya Devi

Sonal Jadav. S Vs National Ins Co. Ltd.

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt Sonal Jadav S

M/S National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mr Dattatareya T R

The Branch Manager Vs Smt Swarnalatha J Shetty

Smt Swarnalatha J Shetty Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.