Partly allowed

Sri. Murthy v. Vs M/S. Ama Logistics

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2021MFA/2478/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appellant challenged the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for a motor vehicle accident. The court held that the Tribunal's assessment of future earnings and certain head allowances was not optimal. The court enhanced the total compensation from the awarded amount.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 6,88,581/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

Sri. Murthy v Vs M/S. Ama Logistics — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I. ARUN

¶6

MFA NO.2478 OF 2019 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MURTHY V S/O LATE VENKATAMUNIYAPPA, AGED 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.54,

¶9

BEHIND RADIANT APT SUNCITY ROAD, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BENGALURU-560060 ... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI: A DHANANJAYA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

M/S. AMA LOGISTICS CHANDMARI, NAGALAND, KOHIMA-797001

¶13

FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INS CO LTD NO.31, 3^RD FLOOR, SHRAVANI KRISHNA MANSION, 100 FEET ROAD, JAYANAGAR II BLOCK, BENGALURU-560011 ... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI: RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1- SERVED)

¶15

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 29/11/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.5750/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE & XXVIII ACMM., COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-13), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, M.I. ARUN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.5750/2017 by the Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru dated 29.11.2018, the petitioner therein has preferred this appeal.

¶20

For the sake of convenience, parties are

¶21

referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that on

¶23

08.08.2017 at about 4.00 p.m. petitioner was riding his Motor Cycle bearing No.KA-05-EL-2703 at Narasapura Industrial Area Cross, Kolar District, at that time, a Lorry bearing Reg.No.NL-01-N-7958

¶24

¶25

driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against his motor cycle causing grievous injuries to him. Hence, he filed MVC No.5750/2017 claiming

¶26

compensation of Rs.22,00,000/-.

¶27

Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 is the

¶28

Insurance Company with whom the offending Lorry is duly insured.

¶29

After service of notice respondent No.1 did not appear and remained exparte and respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed statement of objections denying the liability.

¶30

The petitioner, to prove his case, examined himself and one more witness as PWs-1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.14. The respondent No.2 got examined one witness and got marked two documents as Ex.R.1 to R.2.

¶31

¶32

7. Based on the pleadings and evidence let in,

¶33

the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,68,661/- to the petitioner. Not satisfied by the same, the petitioner therein has preferred this appeal.

¶34

The factum of accident and the same happening due to negligent driving of the offending Lorry is not disputed. The only question that arises for consideration is quantum of accident.

¶35

It is seen that the petitioner due to the accident sustained lacerated wound over right eyebrow, lacerated wound over left leg, lacerated wound left heel, fracture on left tibia and left fibula, subdural hemorrhage along inter hemispherical region and sub arachnoids hemorrhage along preportine region. Doctor has assessed the disability at 48% of the left lower limb and 16% to the whole body. The same has been accepted by the Tribunal. No reasons has been assigned as to why the same requires to be

¶36

¶37

altered. It is further concluded by the Tribunal that 16% of the disability is to be considered to determine loss of future earnings. The petitioner at the time of the accident was aged about 48 years. Though it is claimed the petitioner was earning handsomely, no proof of income is produced. The Tribunal has considered his income notionally at Rs.9,000/- per month. The accident is of the year 2017 and the notional income of Rs.9,000/- adopted by the Tribunal is on the lower side. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in consultation with the Insurance Companies, the notional income agreed to be taken for the year 2017 is Rs.11,000/- per month. Given his age, a multiplier of ‘13’ is applicable. Taking the same into consideration, the petitioner would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,74,560/- as against Rs.2,24,640/- on the count of loss of future earnings due to permanent disability (11,000 x 12 x 13 x 16%). Towards pain

¶38

¶39

and sufferings Rs.50,000/- is awarded, in our opinion we deem it appropriate to enhance it to a sum of Rs.75,000/-. Towards medical expenses, a sum of Rs.2,14,021/- is awarded, we find the same to be based upon the records made available by the petitioner and we find the same to be appropriate. Similarly, a sum of Rs.40,000/- awarded under the head conveyance expenses, nourishment and nutritious food is held to be just and correct. Towards loss of amenities and unhappiness a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded, we deem it appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.50,000/-. Towards future medical expenses a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded, we deem it appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.35,000/-. Thus in all the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.6,88,581/as against Rs.5,68,661/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶40

Hence, the following:

¶41

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i] The appeal is allowed in part.

¶44

ii] The total compensation awarded

¶45

by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.6,88,581/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Eighty

¶46

Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty one only) as against Rs.5,68,661/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶47

iii] The insurance company shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.

¶48

iv] The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability,

¶49

¶50

apportionment and disbursement remains intact.

¶51

v] The modified compensation

¶52

amount shall be apportioned and disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.

¶53

vi] Draw modified award accordingly.

¶54

vii] The Registry shall transfer the amount in deposit along with original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

MH/-

Sri. Murthy v. Vs M/S. Ama Logistics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Murthy v. Vs M/S. Ama Logistics

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

State of Karnataka Vs Sri.S.S. Bagalkoti

Mohammed Sulthan Sheriff @ Shabaz Vs M/S Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Housing & Urban Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs D.K. Ramesh

Smt. Nagarathnamma Vs Kariyappa

Smt M R Vijayakumari Vs Bharath Pawar R

Smt Malligamma Vs Sri Manjunath