Partly allowed

Mr. Karthik Shenoy v. the United India Insurance Co.Ltd

Karnataka HC17 Dec 2021MFA/2911/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court under Section 173(1) MV Act allowed an appeal in a motor accident claim. It held that compensation awarded by the tribunal for attendant charges, loss of amenities, and loss of income during treatment period was inadequate. The court recalculated the total compensation to Rs.2,21,200.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs.2,21,200/- towards pain, loss of income, attendant charges, and loss of amenities.

Mr. Karthik Shenoy Vs the United India Insurance Co.Ltd — Karnataka HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

¶5

M.F.A. NO.2911 OF 2014 (MV- I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. KARTHIK SHENOY S/O LATE MANEL RAMANANDA SHENOY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT 'KARTHIK KRUPA' OPPOSITE ASHOKNAGAR POST OFFICE KOTTARA, MANGALORE-575 006.

¶8

...APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI GURUPRASAD B R, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. VARANASI BUILDING, MISSION STREET BUNDER, MANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶12

MR. N NITHYANANDA POOJARY

¶13

S/O MEMPA POOJARY

¶14

ADULT, R/AT HAMBADA HOUSE NARAVI, BELTHANGADY TALUK D.K. DISTRCT.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. KISHORE KUMAR REDDY FOR Y. ARUNA ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. K SHASHIKANTH PRASAD FOR R2)

¶17

¶18

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 08.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC

¶19

¶20

NO.681/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE ANDMEMBER, MACT, MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

At the stage of admission itself, by consent of

¶24

both the counsels, the matter is taken up for hearing and disposed of finally.

¶25

This appeal is filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and award passed by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and Member Mact, Mangalore, (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), in MVC No.681/2012 dated 08.10.2013, wherein the claim petition came to be allowed in part by awarding compensation of Rs.1,80,200/with interest at 6% p.a.

¶26

The appellant/petitioner filed a petition before the tribunal claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident which is occurred on 20.01.2012.

¶27

¶28

Brief case of the petitioner before the tribunal is that on 20.01.2012 at about 8.35 a.m., when the petitioner was riding motorcycle bearing Reg.No. KA-19-EA-73 on Kottarachowki-Urva Store Road, at Kottara Junction, Mangalore, the driver of the car No.KA-21-A-4498 drove the same negligently, dashed the same to the motor cycle, thereby caused accident, caused injuries to the petitioner. He contended that due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the accident occurred. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the tribunal claiming compensation.

¶29

After service of notice, the 2^nd respondent - Insurance Company appeared and filed objections denying the contents of the petition and contended that the liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. 1^st respondent remained absent.

¶30

After considering the pleadings and contentions

¶31

of the parties, the tribunal framed the following issues:

¶32

“1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 20.0.2012 at about 8.35 a.m., at Kottara

¶33

¶34

Junction, Kottara Chowki-Urva Store Road, Mangalore, within the limits of Traffic West Police Station, in view of negligent use of a new Car No.KA 21 A 4498 an accident took place resulting in the injuries to the petitioner?

¶35

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what rate? And from whom?

¶36

3. What order or award?"

¶37

Before the tribunal, the petitioner himself got

¶38

examined as PW.1, examined 3 witnesses as PW.2 to P.W.4

¶39

and got marked 61 documents and a X-ray at Ex.P1 to P18. On behalf of respondents, insurance company produced insurance policy which was got marked as Ex.R1.

¶40

After hearing the arguments, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,80,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioner has preferred this appeal.

¶41

¶42

Heard Sri. Guruprasad.B.R., learned counsel for appellant, Sri. Kishore Kumar Reddy for Sri/Smt. Y. Aruna, learned counsel for 1^st respondent No.1 and Sri. K. Shashikanth Prasad, learned counsel for 2^nd respondent.

¶43

Learned counsel for the appellant mainly argued that the tribunal has not awarded appropriate compensation towards 'Attendant and Conveyance charges' though the appellant is earsning a salary of Rs.17,324/-. Learned counsel further argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards 'Loss of income during treatment period' is lesser than what is required. Further, the tribunal has awarded very meager amount towards 'loss of amenities, future unhappiness' in view of the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant. Therefore, learned counsel argued to modify the compensation awarded by the tribunal and prays for enhancement of compensation.

¶44

Against this learned counsel for the insurance company supported the impugned judgment and award and the Tribunal has properly considered the evidence and the

¶45

¶46

compensation awarded is just and fair compensation and the judgment and award needs no interference.

¶47

I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the appeal memo, impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal and also records placed before this Court.

¶48

It is evident that the appellant is working as a Manager (Import and Export) Yojaka India Pvt. Ltd. It is evident from the wound certificate that the appellant suffered fracture of dislocation of left humerus. It is also evident that he was inpatient for period of 14 days i.e. from 20.01.2012 to 02.02.2012.

¶49

On perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering. In my opinion, the compensation awarded by the tribunal towards pain and suffering is just and proper. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards medicine and hospital charges is also proper.

¶50

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards 'Nourishment charges and attendant and

¶51

¶52

conveyance' is only Rs.4,000/- which needs to be enhanced by Rs.15,000/- and towards 'loss of amenities, future unhappiness, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.22,000/-. The wound certificate shows that the appellant suffered fracture dislocation of left humerus which creates unhappiness throughout his life and it needs to be enhanced by Rs.10,000/-. Towards 'loss of income during treatment period', the compensation awarded is Rs.75,000/-. It is evident from para No.28 of the impugned judgment, the appellant is earning Rs.17,324/- as gross salary. It is also evident that the appellant remained absent for duties from 20.01.2012 to 10.07.2012. In my opinion, the compensation towards 'loss of income during treatment period' to be enhanced to Rs.95,000/- taking into consideration the period of leave applied.

¶53

In the result, considering the nature of injuries, evidence of the appellant, the compensation awarded by the tribunal need to be re-judged and the compensation awarded by the tribunal recalculated under the different heads of compensation as under:

¶54

¶55

Sl. No.	Particulars	Compensation awarded by the tribunal	Compensation re- determined by this court
1.	Towards pain and suffering	Rs.35,000/-	Rs.35,000/-
2.	Towards medicine and hospitalcharges	Rs.44,200/-	Rs.44,200/-
3.	Towards loss of earning during treatment period	Rs.75,000/-	Rs.95,000/-
4.	Towards nourishment, attendant and conveyance	Rs. 4,000/-	Rs.15,000/-
5.	Loss of amenities, future unhappiness	Rs.22,000/-	Rs.32,000/-
	Total	Rs. 1,80,200/-	Rs.2,21,200/-

¶56

In the result, I pass the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) The appeal is partly allowed;

¶59

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by Principal Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Mangalore, having been modified, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation Rs.2,21,200/- (Rupees Two lakh twenty one thousand two hundred only).

¶60

(iii) The other conditions of the tribunal regarding apportionment and interest remained unaltered.

¶61

(iv) The 2^nd respondent shall deposits the compensation amount within six weeks from

¶62

¶63

the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶64

(v) Regarding rate of interest and other order passed by the tribunal is kept in tact.

¶65

(v) Costs made easy.

¶66

(vi) Sent back the records to the tribunal.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

SSD

Mr. Karthik Shenoy v. the United India Insurance Co.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Karthik Shenoy v. the United India Insurance Co.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Yogesh Vs Sri C Kallesh

T. Palakshappa Vs Manjunath

Sri Mohan Vs Sri C Prabhudevaiah

Gopplaiah Vs M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri M Manjunath Vs Sri Ramachandiran S

M/S Kathle Khan Estate Vs Smt Mallikamma @ Mallika