Partly allowed

Sri N Sadashiva Shetty v. Sri Atavulla H

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2020MFA/5480/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal by a road accident victim against an MACT award. The court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 2.87 lakhs to Rs. 4.10 lakhs by upholding full medical bills and adding disability compensation, while retaining the tribunal's findings on liability.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 4,10,905/- payable with 6% interest; insurer to deposit within 90 days.

Sri N Sadashiva Shetty Vs Sri Atavulla H — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4^TH 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.5480/2014 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI. N.SADASHIVA SHETTY RTD.DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LIC OF INDIA S/O LATE.GANGU SHETTY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT H.NO.17-23-1625/3, D’ SILVA LANE KANKANADY, MANGALORE-575 001. ...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.S. PRAKASH SHETTY, ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

SRI.ATAVULLA H. S/O ABDUL HAMEED AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS VALACHIL HOUSE, HALEYANGADI MANGALORE-575 001.

¶13

MOHAMMED FAHAD IBRAHIM (ADULT) S/O IBRAHIM S.M. R/O # 3-134, NEAR AKV HIGH SCHOOL SURALPADY, KINNIKAMBLA POST MANGALORE-575 001.

¶14

ROYAL SUNDARM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SUNDARAM TOWERS WHITES ROAD

¶15

¶16

ROYAPETTAH CHENNAI-600 014. …RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.K.SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADV. FOR R-3; V/O DTD 11.1.2016, NOTICE TO R-1 & R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶18

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.04.2014 PASSED IN MVC No.1394/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 4^TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, D.K., MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 16.04.2014 in MVC No.1394/2012 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge & MEMBER, MACT, D.K., Mangalore ['Tribunal’ for short].

¶22

The claimant preferred petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident which occurred on 26.04.2012.

¶23

It was contended that on 26.04.2012 at 13.20

¶24

hours, when the petitioner was walking on Falnir road in

¶25

¶26

front of IDBI Bank, Kankanady, Mangalore, the driver of car bearing registration No.KA-19-P-6374 drove the same negligently, dashed to the petitioner thereby caused the accident in question. Due to the said impact, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The claimant took treatment at Unity Hospital and Yenepoya Hospital, Mangalore by incurring huge medical expenses. It was averred that on the date of the accident, the claimant was aged about 73 years, used to earn Rs.60,000/- per month working as LIC agent. On these set of facts, compensation was sought by the claimant.

¶27

In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the insurer appeared before the Tribunal and contested the claim denying the petition averments. However, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained absent and placed exparte.

¶28

On the basis of the pleadings, Tribunal has framed the issues and answered partly allowing the

¶29

¶30

claim petition awarding total compensation of

¶31

Rs.2,87,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of the petition till its realization.

¶32

Being dissatisfied, the claimant has

¶33

preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the claimant

¶35

has submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding loss of income due to disability. The claimant has sustained grievous injuries and as per the disability certificate and evidence of doctor, who was examined as PW2, the disability was assessed at 23% of left lower limb. The claimant was treated as an inpatient for nearly 19 days. 13 days at the first instance and 6 days for the second time. Huge medical expenses were expended. The Tribunal has failed to award the medical expenses of Rs.1,29,905/- claimed in terms of the medical bills. It was submitted that the compensation

¶36

awarded under the different heads is meager.

¶37

Accordingly, sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for the insurer supporting the impugned judgment and award submitted that the claimant was aged about 73 years at the time of the accident. Considering the income tax returns filed by the claimant at Ex.P19, noticing the income decreased by Rs.60,965/-, awarded the same towards loss of income during treatment period and there is no scope for further enhancement of compensation.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is evident that the claimant has suffered grievous injuries to the left hand, left knee, head injuries, left ear and segmental fracture of both the bones of left leg. He took treatment at Yenopaya Hospital, Mangalore from 26.04.2012 to 08.05.2012 then from 30.04.2013 to

¶40

¶41

05.05.2013. The Tribunal has awarded the

¶42

compensation towards medical expenses only to the extent of Rs.95,000/denying the claim of Rs.1,29,905/-. Since all the medical bills claimed are available in the record, we deem it appropriate to award Rs.1,29,905/- towards hospital and medical charges as against Rs.95,000/-. Ex.P19 issued by the Chief Manager, LIC shows that the claimant was working as LIC agent and his income tax assessed for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 would indicate the income earned by the claimant at Rs.6,87,681/- and Rs.6,26,726/- respectively. The Tribunal considering the deduction in the income to an extent of Rs.60,965/awarded the loss of income during treatment period at Rs.61,000/- denying the future loss of income. Having considered the age of the claimant and his occupation as an agent of LIC, we deem it appropriate to award compensation towards disability which is assessed at Rs.75,000/- on the basis of the assessment made at

¶43

- 7 -

¶44

23% to the left lower limb by the doctor coupled with the disability certificate at Ex.P20.

¶45

Having regard to the period of treatment

¶46

taken by the claimant for 19 days as an inpatient at Yenopoya hospital, we award 25,000/towards nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges. In all other respects, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal remains intact.

¶47

For the reasons aforesaid, the total

¶48

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed

¶49

as under:

¶50

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount [in Rs.]
1.	Pain and suffering	70,000/-
2.	Medicine and hospital charges	1,29,905/-
3.	Nourishment, Attendant and conveyance charges	25,000/-
4.	Loss of income during treatment period	61,000/-
5.	Loss of amenities and future unhappiness	50,000/-
6.	Towards disability	75,000/-
	Total	4,10,905/-

¶51

¶52

Thus, the claimant shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,10,905/as against Rs.2,87,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

¶53

Hence, the following

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i] The appeal is allowed in part.

¶56

ii] The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.4,10,905/- as against Rs.2,87,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶57

iii] The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability, apportionment and disbursement remains intact.

¶58

iv] The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within

¶59

¶60

90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.

¶61

v] The modified compensation amount shall be disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.

¶62

vi] Draw modified award accordingly.

¶63

vii] All pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

NC.

Sri N Sadashiva Shetty v. Sri Atavulla H

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N Sadashiva Shetty v. Sri Atavulla H

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. Rajanna Vs Sri. Venkatesh. H. T.

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

The Branch Manager Vs Smt Swarnalatha J Shetty

K P Ramesh Vs Smt a Vani

Dr. P.M Srinivasa Rao S/O Late P v Madhava Rao Vs Dr. P.M Nagaraja Rao S/O P v Madhava Rao

The Claim Manager Vs Kiran Kumar P