Partly allowed

Venugopal v. N C Maruthish

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2021MFA/1240/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, the appellate court enhanced the total compensation from Rs.1,53,900 to Rs.3,08,700. The court reassessed the claimant's disability from 10% to 15% and adopted a notional income of Rs.6,500 per month, applying a multiplier of 14 under Sarla Verma. The appellant was not awarded interest for the pendency of this appeal.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.3,08,700; interest denied for the period of appeal pendency; liability and apportionment orders remain intact.

Venugopal Vs N C Maruthish — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1240 OF 2017 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

Venugopal S/o Venkatachalaiah Aged about 56 years R/at Near Water Tank Melekote Tumkur Town-572 101.

¶10

...Appellant

¶11

(By Sri Shantharaj K, Advocate)

¶12

AND

¶13

N C Maruthish S/o Chandrappa Aged about 41 years R/at Maruthi Cycle Works Melekote Post Tumkur-572 101.

¶14

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. Represented by its Manager Branch Office, I Floor Jayadeva Complex

¶15

¶16

P B No.54, B H Road Tumkur Town-572 101.

¶17

….Respondents

¶18

(By Shri Janardhan Reddy, Advocate for R2; vide order dated 12.07.2021 notice to R1 is dispensed with)

¶19

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award 14.01.2016 passed in MVC No.1251 of 2011 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tumkur, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶20

This Miscellaneous First appeal coming on for further orders, this day, INDIRESH J., delivered the following:

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

This appeal is filed by the claimant against judgment and award dated 14^th January, 2016 passed in MVC No.1251 of 2011 by the VI Additional District Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tumkur, (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal’), seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶23

For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to with their status and rank before the Tribunal.

¶24

It is the case of the claimant that on 04^th July, 2011 at about 07.00 am, the claimant was a pedestrian on NH-206 Ring Road, near Dana Palace, Tumkur and at that time, a motorcycle

¶25

¶26

bearing registration No.KA-06/EE-5783 dashed against the claimant and due to the said impact, the claimant suffered grievous injuries. It is further contended that due to the injuries sustained in the accident the claimant is unable to carry his masonary work, as he used to prior to the accident and hence, filed MVC No.1251 of 2011 on the file of the Tribunal, seeking compensation.

¶27

After service of notice, respondent entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings on record, formulated issues for its consideration. Claimant was examined as PW1 and got examined the Doctor as PW2 and produced 17 documents and same were marked as Exhibits P1 to P17. Respondents have examined two witnesses as RW1 and RW2 and produced four documents and same were marked as Exhibits R1 to R4. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and award dated 14^th January, 2016 allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.1,53,900/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from

¶28

¶29

the date of petition till realisation. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement.

¶30

We have heard Sri K. Shantharaj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant and Sri Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant argued that the claimant sustained grievous injuries as set out in wound certificate-Exhibit P3 and the Doctor was examined to prove the disability of the claimant and despite the same, the Tribunal has granted meager compensation which requires to be enhanced in this appeal.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company sought to justify the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶33

We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and re-appreciated

¶34

¶35

the findings recorded by the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the claimant sustained grievous injuries on account of road traffic accident occurred on 04^th July, 2011. The Tribunal, after considering the testimony of PW2, had taken the whole body disability of the claimant at 10%. In this regard, we have carefully considered the medical records as well as the evidence of PW2 and considering the injuries suffered by the claimant so also in the facts and circumstances of the case, we have reassessed the disability of the claimant at 15%. The Tribunal had taken the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month. In this regard, no document was produced by the claimant to prove his income and therefore, there is no impediment for us to infer the notional income as per the Lok Adalat chart with relevance to the accident of the year 2011. The notional income taken in respect of the accidents of the year 2011, is Rs.6,500/- and the same is taken in this appeal also. As per records, the age of the claimant was 50 at the time of accident and in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the appropriate multiplier

¶36

¶37

would be 14. Hence, the loss of future earning would be Rs.1,52,100/- (Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 13 x 15%). The records reveal that the claimant was inpatient for a period of 15 days and therefore we award Rs.15,000/- towards food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges. Considering the nature of injury sustained by the claimant Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering; and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities. Taking the monthly income at Rs.6,500/-, Rs.19,500/- is awarded towards loss of income during the laid-up period. The amount awarded under other heads is not disturbed. Hence, the claimant is entitled for total compensation as follows:

¶38

Sl.No.	Head of compensation	Amount (in Rs.)
1.	Pain and suffering	50,000
2.	Medical expenses	32,100
3.	Food, nourishment, Attendant and conveyance charges	15,000
4.	Loss of amenities	40,000
5.	Loss of future income	1,52,100
6.	Loss of income during laid-up period	19,500
	Total	3,08,700

¶39

Hence, we pass the following:

¶40

¶41

O R D E R

¶42

i) Appeal is allowed in part;

¶43

ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.3,08,700/(Rupees three lakh eight thousand seven hundred only) as against Rs.1,53,900/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization, subject to clause (iii);

¶44

iii) The claimant shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period of 275 days caused in filing the appeal before this Court in terms of the order of this Court dated 20.07.2021.

¶45

iv) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability, apportionment and disbursement remains intact;

¶46

v) The insurance company shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the

¶47

¶48

Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order;

¶49

vi) The modified compensation amount shall be apportioned and disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal;

¶50

vii) Draw modified award accordingly;

¶51

viii) The Registry shall transfer the amount in deposit along with the original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith;

¶52

ix) All pending I.As. stand disposed of accordingly.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

lnn

Venugopal v. N C Maruthish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venugopal v. N C Maruthish

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 S.N.Narasimha Murthy @ Murthy Vs Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.

Sri. Shiva Kumar B @ Vs Manjunath v

Sri.H.C. Kumaraswamy Vs Special Land

P R Gopalakrishna Reddy Vs Shri Veerbhadraiah

The Divisional Manager Vs Gouthami

Sri Ashoka G Vs Prop H C Nagarajaiah