Partly allowed

Master Sunil v. the Divisional Manager

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2021MFA/2694/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award challenging quantum of compensation. Court allowed partial appeal, enhancing compensation based on 10% whole body disability assessment and loss of parental income. Claimant gets adjusted amount after negligence attribution.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.1,14,480/- with interest at 6% per annum from date of petition till realization; Respondent-Insurance Company to deposit amount within 6 weeks.

Master Sunil Vs the Divisional Manager — 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.2694/2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MASTER SUNIL S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, R/O.NO.SLBTC QUARTERS, POLICE VIJAYA’S HOUSE, INDO DYANISH FARM, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH.

¶9

SINCE THE APPELLANT IS MINOR HENCE REP. BY HIS FATHER, AS A NATURAL GUARDIAN, SRI MUNIYAPPA. … APPELLANT

¶10

(BY MRS. H.C.KAVITHA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER

¶13

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., THIRD PARTY HUBLI, 19/19/1, SOUTH END ROAD, 2^ND FLOOR, ABOVE CANARA BANK, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004.

¶14

2 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶15

BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE,

¶16

¶17

KH ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY MR.B.A.RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 09.04.2014)

¶20

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.04.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.20/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 19^TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, 41^ST ACMM, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

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.

¶24

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 25.04.2012, passed in M.V.C.No.20/2011 on the file of the MACT, Bengaluru City, SCCG.17 (‘the Tribunal’ for short) questioning the quantum of compensation.

¶25

¶26

The parties are referred to as per their original

¶27

rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

¶28

The factual matrix of the case is that the claimant is the

¶29

minor boy aged about 12 years and he met with an accident on 09.12.2010, due to which he suffered grievous injuries i.e., Compound II A fracture lower 1/3^rd shaft of right femur. He was an inpatient from 7.4.2011 to 9.4.2011. To substantiate his claim, the claimant examined the doctor as P.W.2, who assessed the disability for right lower limb at 40% and further the whole body at 10%. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.93,100/as compensation inclusive of all heads and after attributing negligence to the extent of 20%, an amount of Rs.74,480/- was awarded with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the claimant.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Tribunal not awarded the just and

¶31

¶32

reasonable compensation though the doctor has deposed in his evidence that he has assessed the disability for right lower limb at 40% and the disability to the whole body at 10%. The Tribunal also committed an error in not awarding any compensation on the head of ‘loss of future income’ due to the disability suffered by the injured.

¶33

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has taken note of the nature of the injuries and awarded an amount of Rs.35,000/- on the head of ‘pain and sufferings’; an amount of Rs.23,100/towards ‘medical expenses’; an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards ‘loss of earnings of the parent; an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance, attendant charges and nourishing food; and an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards discomfort, loss of amenities in life and future unhappiness, in all awarded an amount of Rs.93,100/and the same is at par. Hence, it does not require any interference of this Court.

¶34

¶35

Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondentInsurance Company, the points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:-

¶36

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

¶37

(ii) What order?

¶38

Points No.1 and 2:-

¶39

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the records, it is clear that the doctor who has been examined before the Tribunal as P.W.2 has assessed the disability to the whole body of the injured at 10%. When such being the case, the Tribunal ought to have taken the nature of injuries while assessing the compensation. The Apex Court in

¶40

Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another, reported in (2014) 14

¶41

¶42

Supreme Court Cases 396, held that if the disability assessed by the doctor is at 10%, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is to be awarded towards ‘disability’. In the case on hand also, the doctor has assessed the disability to the whole body at 10% and hence, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards ‘disability’.

¶43

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.23,100/toward ‘medical expenses’ based on the medical bills. Hence, it does not require any interference of this Court. It is to be noted that injured is a minor and the parents have to take care of the minor boy who suffered fracture to his right lower limb. Hence, the loss of income of parents is to be considered. Having considered the period of treatment and also the nature of injuries, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.20,000/- on the head of ‘loss of income of the parents’. Accordingly, the learned counsel is entitled for the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,43,100/- as against Rs.93,100/-. After attributing the negligence to the extent of 20% on the claimant, he is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,14,480/- as against Rs.74,480/-.

¶44

¶45

In view of the discussion made above, I pass the

¶46

following:-

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶49

(ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by granting compensation of Rs.1,14,480/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation, from the date of petition till realization as against Rs.74,480/-

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

PYR

Master Sunil v. the Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Master Sunil v. the Divisional Manager

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

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

Sri N B Vishwanath Vs Sri B Rajesh

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Reshma