Partly allowed

Sri. Chandrashekar v. the Oriental General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2021MFA/3438/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment assesses the quantum of compensation in a motor vehicle accident case. The High Court enhanced the total compensation from Rs.4,40,460/- to Rs.13,71,300/- after recalculating loss of future earnings based on a notional monthly income of Rs.11,000/- and a 50% disability rating, while keeping liability intact.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs.13,71,300/- with interest at 6% per annum; liability and apportionment orders of the Tribunal remain intact.

Sri. Chandrashekar Vs the Oriental General Insurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

M.F.A.No.3438/2020 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI CHANDRASHEKAR S/O SUKRAM OBAIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O MUDDAPURA, MYSARAHATTI VILLAGE TURUVANUR HOBLI - 577517 CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT ...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

1 . THE ORIENTAL GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SHARADA COMPLEX OPP. KSRTC BUS STAND

¶13

CHITRADURGA - 577501

¶14

REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶15

2 . SRI LAKSHMANAPPA S/O KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O 2^ND CROSS, V.P.EXTENSION CHITRADURGA – 577501 …RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI P.B.RAJU, ADV. FOR R-1;

¶17

VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 30.11.2020 NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH.)

¶18

¶19

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.02.2020 PASSED IN MVC No.648/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, ADDITIONAL MACT-III, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 29.02.2020 passed in MVC No.648/2019 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-III at Chitradurga ['Tribunal’ for short].

¶23

The claimant instituted the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.

¶24

It was averred that on 11.01.2017 at about 08.00 p.m., when the claimant was proceeding on the left side of the road near Bridge road, Muddapura village, Chitradurga Taluk, the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-16/EC-7677 came in a high speed with

¶25

- 3 -

¶26

rash and negligent manner and dashed to the claimant

¶27

– pedestrian resulting which, the claimant suffered grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to hospital, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient for a period of two months. It was contended that he had incurred huge medical expenses. Prior to the accident, doing mason work and also as an agriculturist, he used to earn Rs.25,000/- p.m. Due to the amputation of right palm, he is unable to do his work as earlier resulting in loss of income. On these facts and grounds, the claimant prayed for compensation.

¶28

In response to the notice issued, the respondent No.1 remained exparte. The respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed objection statement.

¶29

Te respondent No.2 – insurer contested the claim denying the petition averments. The defence set

¶30

¶31

up was that the alleged accident had not occurred due to rash and negligent act of the rider of the motorcycle but the petitioner himself was solely responsible for the accident. The rider of the motorcycle had no valid and effective driving licence and the first respondent knowingly well entrusted the vehicle to him which amounts to breach of terms and conditions of the policy. It was contended that the compensation claimed by the injured/appellant was abnormal and excessive. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and answered allowing the claim petition in part awarding total compensation of Rs.4,40,460/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

¶33

Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

¶34

- 5 -

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

¶36

that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is disproportionate to the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and its impact for the rest of his life. The Tribunal has awarded a meager compensation and the same deserves to be enhanced having regard to the gravity of injuries sustained by the claimant. 9. Learned counsel for the insurer justifying the impugned judgment and award submitted that on analysis of oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded just compensation and there is no scope for further enhancement. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶37

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the records, the moot point that arises for our consideration is –

¶38

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case?

¶39

¶40

The factum of accident and the injuries

¶41

sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. Ex.P7, the wound certificate issued by the Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopedics, Bengaluru would indicate that the appellant had sustained the following injuries:

¶42

1. Loss of hand – from C/L level of metacarpal [wrist]

¶43

2. 5 x 5 cm wound over the wrist exposing the carpus and tendons.

¶44

Opinion:- The injury is grievous in nature.

¶45

PW2, the doctor has deposed that the injured had sustained grievous injuries causing amputation at the right wrist level which is a schedule injury. The disability is assessed at 50% of right upper limb. The Tribunal considering the same assessed the disability at 22% to the whole body. The medical records would disclose that the right palm of the appellant was amputated. In terms of the Schedule to the Employees Compensation Act, 2003, the injuries sustained by the

¶46

- 7 -

¶47

claimant/appellant being the schedule injuries, the functional disability can be assessed at 50% to the whole body.

¶48

Though the appellant contended that he was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m., no cogent evidence was placed on record to substantiate the same. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has determined the monthly income notionally at Rs.8,000/-. However, having regard to the date of the accident, referring to the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the monthly income of the appellant can be safely re-determined notionally at Rs.11,000/- in the absence of proof of income. Applying the same, loss of future income due to disability would be Rs.11,88,000/- [11,000 x 12 x 18 x 50%].

¶49

Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, which would adversely affect his future life with loss of right palm, we deem it

¶50

¶51

appropriate to award a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards pain and sufferings; a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss

¶52

of amenities; a sum of Rs.25,000/towards nourishment, attendant charges and miscellaneous expenses; a sum of Rs.33,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period considering the monthly income at Rs.11,000/-. The medical expenses at Rs.300/awarded by the Tribunal remains undisturbed.

¶53

For the reasons aforesaid, the total

¶54

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed

¶55

as under:

¶56

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount [in Rs.]
1.	Loss of future earnings	11,88,000/-
2.	Medicalexpenses	300/-
3.	Nourishment and Miscellaneous expenses	25,000/-
4.	Pain,injuriesand sufferings	75,000/-
5.	Loss of amenities, enjoyment of life and discomforts	50,000/-
6.	Loss of income during the laid up period	33,000/-
	Total	13,71,300/-

¶57

- 9 -

¶58

Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.13,71,300/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

¶59

Hence, the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.13,71,300/- as against Rs.4,44,460/-

¶62

with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶63

iii) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability, apportionment and disbursement remains intact.

¶64

iv) The insurance company shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the

¶65

- 10 -

¶66

Tribunal within 90 days from the date of

¶67

receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.

¶68

v) The modified compensation amount shall be apportioned and disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.

¶69

vi) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶70

vii) All pending I.As stand disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

NC.

Sri. Chandrashekar v. the Oriental General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Chandrashekar v. the Oriental General Insurance Co. Ltd.

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

Nishanth N R Vs Jagadish B R

Shri. C. N. Kumar Vs the Branch Manager

Rajashekhar J.K Vs Dheeraj Kumar

Sri B Sharanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mahadevu C M Vs the Manager

Iliyas. M Vs State of Karnataka