Partly allowed

Sri N B Vishwanath v. Sri B Rajesh

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2021MFA/1702/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MFA allowed in part. The Tribunal's quantum of compensation in a motor vehicle accident was remitted. The High Court awarded enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,35,781/- including pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, and future loss, replacing the original award of Rs. 1,24,221/-.

What did the court decide?

Awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,35,781/- with 6% annual interest from the petition date, inclusive of pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, and future loss, increasing the original award from Rs

Sri N B Vishwanath Vs Sri B Rajesh — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

M.F.A.NO.1702/2014 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI N.B.VISHWANATH S/O.N.N.BHASKARA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O GUNDAPPA COMPOUND, K.M.ROAD, CHICKMAGALUR-577101. … APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI JAGADEESH D.C., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . SRI B. RAJESH S/O B.S.ERE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, KANDAL ROAD, KOTE, CHICKMAGALUR-577101.

¶12

2 . SRI RANGANATH S/O CHANDRA SHEKAR GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, BASAVESHWARA ROAD, JAYANAGAR, CHICKMAGALUR-577101.

¶13

3 . THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., K.M.ROAD, CHICKMAGALUR-577101. ... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI S.K.SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI LOKESWARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI M.U.POONACHA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶15

¶16

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC.NO.323/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, CHIKMAGALUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

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

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Though the matter is listed for admission today, with the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶20

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.323/2010 dated 02.09.2013 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT at Chikmagalur (‘the Tribunal’ for short), questioning the quantum of compensation.

¶21

The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

¶22

The factual matrix of the case is that the claimant

¶23

met with an accident on 30.01.2010, as a result of which, he

¶24

¶25

sustained grievous injuries to his right ankle and other parts of the body. There was a swelling and tenderness present on the right ankle; surgical scar seen on both side of right ankle; restriction of dorsiflexion planter flexion, inversion and eversion movements of right ankle and not able to sit in squatting position. He was an inpatient for a period of 32 days in the hospital. The claimant also examined the doctor as PW.2, who assessed the disability at 27% to the lower limb and 13¼ over the whole body. However, the Tribunal considering the age of the claimant taken the disability at 9% taking 1/3^rd of the disability assessed by the doctor to the lower limb.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Tribunal not awarded the compensation on the head of ‘pain and sufferings’. The Tribunal awarded a meager compensation on the head of ‘loss of income during the laid up period’ and only an amount of Rs.5,000/- on the head of ‘food and nutrition’ taking into consideration of the fact that the claimant was inpatient for a period of 32 days. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- on the head of

¶27

¶28

‘future medical treatment’, which is on the lower side. The Tribunal also erred in not awarding any compensation towards ‘attendant charges’. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability at 9% taking 1/3^rd of the disability assessed by the doctor to the extent of 27% to the particular limb and fairly concedes that no compensation is awarded on the head of ‘pain and sufferings’, but the compensation awarded on the other heads are just and reasonable.

¶30

Having considered the arguments the respective

¶31

counsel and also on perusal of the records, the points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are :-

¶32

Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the just and reasonable compensation and whether it requires interference of this Court?

¶33

¶34

2. What Order?

¶35

Points No.1 and 2:-

¶36

Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal of the materials available on record, it is clear that the disability assessed by the doctor is to the extent of 27% to the lower limb and 13¼% over the whole body and the Tribunal has rightly considered the disability at 9% to the whole body taking 1/3^rd of the disability of 27% as assessed by PW.2. Hence, it does not require any interference of this Court.

¶37

Having considered the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, no compensation is awarded on the head of ‘pain and sufferings’ by the Tribunal. The accident is of the year 2010. Taking into consideration of the nature of injuries, particularly, the fracture to right ankle, the claimant was subjected to surgery and was an inpatient for a period of 30 days. Hence, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.40,000/- on the head of ‘pain and sufferings’.

¶38

¶39

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.8,000/- on the head of ‘loss of income during the laid up period’ considering the fact that the claimant was in the hospital for a period of 32 days as inpatient. So as to heal and unite the said fracture, it requires minimum 4 months time. Having taken the income of the claimant at Rs.5,500/- per month for a period of 4 months, the ‘loss of income during the laid up period’ would come to Rs.22,000/-.

¶40

The Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month while assessing the loss of income. In the absence of any documentary proof, the Court has to take the notional income of the claimant at Rs.5,500/- per month. Having taken the income of the claimant at Rs.5,500/per month and by applying the relevant multiplier, the ‘loss of future income’ is recalculated as hereunder:-

¶41

Rs.5,500x12x14x9% = Rs.83,160/-

¶42

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.20,621/- on

¶43

the head of ‘medical expenses’ based on the medical records. Hence, it does not require any interference of this Court. The

¶44

¶45

Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- on the head of ‘food and nutrition’ and no other compensation is awarded in respect of ‘attendant charges’. Having taken note of the fact that he was an inpatient for a period of 32 days and also the accident was taken place in the year 2010, the compensation awarded on the head of ‘food and nutrition’ is to be enhanced to Rs.30,000/- as against Rs.5,000/- inclusive of conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges.

¶46

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- on the head of ‘’future medical expenses’, which is at par and hence, it does not require any interference of this Court. However, the Tribunal failed to award the compensation on the head of ‘loss of amenities’. Since the claimant has to lead rest of his life with the disability of 9%, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.25,000/- on the head of ‘loss of amenities’.

¶47

Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.2,35,781/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization as against Rs.1,24,221/-.

¶48

¶49

In view of the discussion made above, I pass the

¶50

following:-

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶53

(ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by granting compensation of Rs.2,35,781/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization as against Rs.1,24,221/-.

¶54

(iii) Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within 6 weeks’ from today.

¶55

(iv) Registry to transmit the Trial Court Records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

PYR

Sri N B Vishwanath v. Sri B Rajesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N B Vishwanath v. Sri B Rajesh

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

Thippesha Vs Ranganatha

Sri C Ramamurthy @ Kempanna Vs United Indian Insurance Company Ltd.

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt Murali

B.N.Manjunath Vs H.N.Abishekgowda

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Reshma

Master Sunil Vs the Divisional Manager