Partly allowed

Pradeepa v. H.S.Kantharaj

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2021MFA/1270/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the Tribunal's award. The court enhanced compensation from Rs.2,87,000 to Rs.3,85,000, adding Rs.25,000 for loss of parents' income, following a Supreme Court precedent. Interest for the 270-day appeal delay was denied.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.3,85,000; interest at 6% p.a. from petition date excluding 270-day delay period; Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within six weeks.

Pradeepa Vs H.S.Kantharaj — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

M.F.A.NO.1270/2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PRADEEPA S/O MYLARAPPA G AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS STUDENT, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN, FATHER MYLARAPPA S/O GUDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O SHIVAMOGGA TOWN NOW R/O DUMMI VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . H.S.KANTHARAJ S/O SRINIVASA NAIK AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS K.H.B. COLONY, SHIVAMOGGA OWNER OF BUS BEARING NO.KA-18-AA-9099

¶13

2 . SUJATHA BALAKRISHNA W/O K.K. BALAKRISHNA AGE: MAJOR ANNAPOORNESHWARI MOTORS HORANADU ROAD, KALASA CHIKKAMAGALORE DISTRICT

¶14

¶15

3 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHIGATERI MERCANTILE BUILDING CHAMARAJ PET, DAVANAGERE

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 10.07.2015)

¶18

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.01.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.90/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, HOLALKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH ‘VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Though this appeal is listed for admission today, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for appellant/claimant and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company, the same is taken up for final disposal.

¶22

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶23

appellant/claimant and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

¶24

¶25

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant

¶26

challenging the Judgment and Award dated 23.01.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.90/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT., at Holalkere (‘the Tribunal’ for short), questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶27

The factual matrix of the case is that, a minor boy met with an accident and suffered the permanent disability. Hence, the claim was made for an amount of Rs.15 Lakhs before the Tribunal.

¶28

The claimant in order to substantiate his case, he himself examined as P.W.1 and also examined the Doctor as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P198. The respondents have not led any evidence, however, got marked the copy of the policy as Ex.R1.

¶29

The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the claim petition of the petitioner in part granting

¶30

¶31

compensation of Rs.2,87,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the claimant before this Court.

¶32

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant before this Court is that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation of Rs.60,000/- on the head of ‘Pain and agony’ and also grossly erred in awarding an amount of Rs.60,000/towards ‘medical expenses’ and the injured was an inpatient for a period of 45 days and spent more than Rs.1 Lakh towards medical expenses. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court.

¶33

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has taken note of the material available on record and while awarding the compensation

¶34

¶35

taken note of the evidence of the Doctor-P.W.2, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the disability suffered by the claimant was 20%. Though it was contended that he has suffered disability at 35% having taken note of the material available on record, rightly awarded the compensation of Rs.2,87,000/-. Hence, it does not require any interference of this Court.

¶36

Having heard the arguments of learned counsel

¶37

appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the third respondent-Insurance Company and on perusal of the grounds urged in the appeal and the materials available on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:

¶38

(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the just and reasonable compensation as contended by the appellant and it requires an interference of this Court?

¶39

(ii) What order?

¶40

¶41

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):

¶42

Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, P.W.1 got marked the documents particularly, Wound CertificateExs.P5 & 6, Discharge Summary-Ex.P7, Discharge NoteEx.P8, Medical Bills-Exs.P12 to 104, prescriptions-Exs.P106 to 181, Exs.P182 to 193-Photos, Ex.P194-C.D. and Exs.195 & 196 X-rays. The records disclose that he was an inpatient for a period of 45 days and the medical bills also to the tune of Rs.50,800/- and the Tribunal rounded off the same to Rs.60,000/-. Hence, I do not find any error in considering the medical bills.

¶43

The Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Another reported in (2014) 14 SCC 396 , held that, if disability is above 10% and up to 30% to whole body, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.3 Lakhs. It is also an undisputed fact that the medical bills of Rs.60,000/- was awarded and towards ‘loss of income of

¶44

¶45

the parents’ has to be considered. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Mallikarjun ’s case (supra), allowed Rs.25,000/- towards ‘loss of income of the parents’. Hence, in all the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,85,000/-.

¶46

With regard to the interest portion is concerned, this Court vide order dated 10.07.2015, while condoning the delay of 270 days in filing the appeal passed an order that the appellant would not be entitled to any interest for the delayed period of 270 days, in case of enhancement of compensation. Hence, the appellant is not entitled for any interest for the delayed period of 270 days in filing the appeal.

¶47

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶50

(ii) The Judgment and Award dated 23.01.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.90/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT., at

¶51

¶52

Holalkere, is modified granting compensation of Rs.3,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization excluding the interest for a period of 270 days delay in filing the appeal as against Rs.2,87,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶53

(iv) The respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within six weeks from today.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

cp*

Pradeepa v. H.S.Kantharaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeepa v. H.S.Kantharaj

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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Kumari Priya

United Inida Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.Basamma

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Shobha

Sri Neela Kantesh @ Anil Kumar Vs B Chandra Shekar

Sri. Sohel Pasha Vs Sri. Wajid Khan

Smt Venkatamma Vs Javaraiah