Partly allowed

Sri Lakshmi Devamma v. Sri B Obalesu

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2021MFA/1053/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common judgment disposed of two Motor Accident Compensation Appeals. The High Court applied Supreme Court precedent to establish insurer liability. It awarded enhanced compensation of Rs. 19,55,000 with interest, modifying the Claims Tribunal judgment on pain and suffering and future prospects heads.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 19,55,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment.

Sri Lakshmi Devamma Vs Sri B Obalesu — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶7

M. F. A. NO.1303 OF 2016 (MV)

¶8

C/W

¶9

M. F. A. NO.1053 OF 2017 (MV)

¶10

IN M.F.A. No.1303/2016

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER M/S. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.98, SVR COMPLEX, 2^ND FLOOR, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIWALA, BENGALURU.

¶13

...APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. B C SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O THIPPANNA, NOW AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶17

R/AT MARASANAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶18

¶19

GUNDLAGURKI POST, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 101.

¶20

B. OBALESU THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. SREE SAI WATER TREATMENT (P) LTD., NO.22/2, SRI. RAMAKRISHNA BUILDING, NAGAPPA STREET, NEAR SESHADRIPURAM COLLAGE, BENGALURU.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. K N HARISH BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 IS SERVED)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC No.2909 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.15,48,756/WITH INTEREST @ 9% PER ANUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶24

IN M.F.A. No.1053/2017

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O TIPPANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/A: MARASANAHALLI VILLAGE GUNDLAGURKI POST CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶27

...APPELLANT

¶28

(BY SRI. K N HARISH BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

¶31

B. OBALESU THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. SREE SAI WATER TREATMENT (P) LTD., NO.22/2, SRI. RAMAKRISHNA BUILDING, NAGAPPA STREET, NEAR SESHADRIPURAM COLLAGE, BENGALURU.

¶32

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.98, SVR COMPLEX, 2^ND FLOOR, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIWALA, BENGALURU.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. B C SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) NOTICE TO R-1 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 10.3.2021)

¶35

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE GRANT AND AWARD DATED 02.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC No.2909 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶36

THESE MFAs. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

MFA No.1303/2016 has been filed by the Insurance

¶39

Company whereas MFA No.1053/2017 has been filed by the claimant against the judgment dated 02.11.2015 passed by

¶40

¶41

the Claims Tribunal. Since both the appeals arise out of the same accident, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.

¶42

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal, briefly

¶43

stated, are that on 13.05.2014 at about 1.30 p.m., the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA40/U-1183 as pillion rider towards Talagavara Village and at that time, near Jangamasheegehalli Village, Chintamani Taluk, the driver of a TATA Ace bearing Reg.No.KA-02/AD7298 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was given first aid treatment at General Hospital, Kaiwara and thereafter she was shifted to R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Kolar wherein she was treated as inpatient from 13.05.2014 to 06.06.2014 and again she was admitted to Lakshmi Multi Speciality Hospital, Bengaluru from 06.06.2014 to 11.06.2014 and thereafter was treated

¶44

¶45

at HOSMAT Hospital wherein she was an inpatient from 11.06.2014 to 17.06.2014. It is the case of the claimant that the accident has taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TATA Ace vehicle. It was further pleaded that prior to the accident, she was working as a coolie and earning Rs.8,000/- p.m. It was also pleaded that on account of the said accident, she suffered loss of income during the period of treatment. Accordingly, the claimant claimed compensation of a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- along with interest.

¶46

Respondent No.1 did not appear and was proceeded ex parte . Respondent No.2 in their statement of objections admitted that a policy of insurance was issued in respect of the offending vehicle. It was pleaded that the liability, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It was also pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence. It was further pleaded that at the time of the accident, the

¶47

¶48

vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded that the offending vehicle was being used without any valid permit, fitness certificate and the respondent No.1 has violated the conditions of the policy. Non-compliance of the provisions of Section 134(c) and 158(6) of the MV Act was also pleaded.

¶49

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant herself was examined as PW-1 and Dr.Paparajamurthy Dantam was examined as PW-5 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P29. On behalf of the respondents, one Puttasidda Nayaka and Jithin Kumar K.G., were examined as RW-1 and RW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. The Claims Tribunal, vide judgment dated 02.11.2015, inter alia held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TATA Ace vehicle, as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries. It was further held that the

¶50

¶51

claimant was entitled to a compensation of Rs.15,48,756/along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

¶52

The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding future prospects at the rate of 30% whereas the same ought to have been awarded at the rate of 25%. It is further submitted that the rate of interest awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the higher side and the same deserves to be reduced.

¶53

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/p.m. and the same ought to have been assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. It is also submitted that the amount awarded under the head 'pain and sufferings' and 'future medical

¶54

¶55

expenses' are on the lower side. It is further submitted that the amount under the head 'loss of amenities' also deserves to be enhanced as the claimant has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 100%.

¶56

We have considered the submissions made on

¶57

both sides and have perused the records.

¶58

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN VS. ORIENTAL

¶59

INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (AIR 2017 Supreme Court 3668) , the issue with regard to liability of the Insurance Company is no longer res integra as it has been held in the aforesaid decision that a 'light motor vehicle' includes 'transport vehicle' and the driver who is having a licence to drive a 'light motor vehicle' can drive all vehicles including

¶60

'transport vehicle'. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, Insurance Company is held liable to pay the amount of compensation.

¶61

¶62

Now, we may assess the quantum of compensation which is payable to the claimant. The claimant, admittedly, has sustained injuries in the accident which took place on 13.05.2014. Particulars of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the aforesaid accident are as under:

¶63

(1) Tenderness over lower back

¶64

(2) Traumatic paraplegia with burst fracture of D12

¶65

(3) CLW over the scalp near occipital region

¶66

PW-5 Dr. Paparajamurthy Dantam has stated in his

¶67

evidence that the claimant has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 100%. The claimant in her claim petition has claimed that she used to earn Rs.8,000/- p.m. Therefore, we assess the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/-. To the aforesaid earning, 25% of the amount is required to be added on account of future prospects. Thus,

¶68

the monthly income of the claimant comes to Rs.10,000/-.

¶69

Taking into account the age of the claimant at the time of the accident, applicable multiplier is '14'. Thus the claimant

¶70

¶71

is held entitled to a sum of Rs.16,80,000/- (10,000 x 12 x 14) on account of loss of future income.

¶72

The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- under the head pain and sufferings. The claimant has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 100%. Therefore, we enhance the amount to Rs.1,00,000/-. The claimant has remained inpatient for a period of 34 days. Therefore, the amount awarded on account of attendant charges, conveyance and other incidental expenses to the tune of Rs.25,000/- is on the lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.75,000/-. Compensation on account of loss of amenities to the extent of Rs.25,000/- in the facts of the case is inadequate. Therefore, we enhance it to Rs.1,00,000/- taking into account the injuries sustained by the claimant and her permanent disability which is to the extent of 100%. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.19,55,000/-.

¶73

¶74

Needless to state that the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment is made.

¶75

To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Claims Tribunal.

¶76

In the result, the appeals are disposed of.

¶77

SD/JUDGE

¶78

SD/JUDGE

¶79

Sri Lakshmi Devamma v. Sri B Obalesu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lakshmi Devamma v. Sri B Obalesu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri N K Murthy Vs Sri Dharani Kumar N

Smt. Roja Vs Sri. Suresh B C

Sri B H Narayanaswamy Vs the Karnataka Power Transmission

Sri Tippanna Vs Sri B Obalesu

Raju Vs Sri. Robert Ranjan v

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt Lakshmidevamma