Partly allowed

Smt. Kanika Agrawal v. Sri. Chetan Reddy. B

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2021MFA/3444/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed partial appeal in a motor accident compensation case, enhancing the sum awarded to the claimant from Rs.5.86 lakhs to Rs.7.53 lakhs. The Court recalculated loss of income by adjusting salary deductions and recommended higher amounts for disability and pain and suffering.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced total compensation to Rs.7,53,847/- with 6% p.a. interest; liability and disbursement of Tribunal order remain intact.

Smt. Kanika Agrawal Vs Sri. Chetan Reddy. B — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11^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.3444/2019 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SMT KANIKA AGRAWAL W/O MANISH AGRAWAL AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT FLAT No.301, KESAR RESIDENCY APARTMENTS G-BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR BEHIND SANTHI NAGAR HOTEL BENGALURU NORTH SAHAKARANAGAR POST BENGALURU-92.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI HALLI.S.B., ADV.)

¶12

AND :

¶13

SRI CHETAN REDDY.B

¶14

S/O BHEEMANNA MAJR, R/AT 424, II CROSS MURTHYNAGARA, GOKUL POST

¶15

BENGALURU-54.

¶16

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, No.2, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE P.KALINGA RAO ROAD [MISSION ROAD] BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI GANGARAJA REDDY.H.A., ADV. FOR R-1; SMT GEETHA RAJ, ADV. FOR R-2.)

¶18

¶19

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC No.464/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU [SCCH-18], 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 16.02.2019 passed in MVC No.464/2018 on the file of the III Additional Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) ['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 her in the road traffic accident.

¶24

It was averred in the claim petition that on

¶25

20.09.2017 at about 09.15 a.m., when the claimant was dropping her son to the school and returning home in

¶26

- 3 -

¶27

the Scooty bearing No.KA-04-HU-0051 near Shanthi Sagar Restaurant, Sahakaranagar Main road, the rider of the Bajaj motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04HQ-8384 [offending vehicle] ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner dashed to her. As a result, she fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to Columbia Asia hospital, Hebbal, Bengaluru and has taken treatment as an inpatient.

¶28

It was contended that the claimant was aged

¶29

about 29 years, working as a Junior Executive [ATM] at Airport Authority of India and was drawing a salary of Rs.1,15,000/- p.m., The accidental injuries has caused loss of earning capacity and she has incurred huge expenses towards medical treatment. On these facts and grounds, compensation was sought by the claimant.

¶30

In response to the notice issued, the

¶31

respondents appeared before the Tribunal and filed the

¶32

¶33

written statements. The respondent No.1 denying the petition averments contended that the accident occurred due to the claimant herself who came from the opposite direction and dashed against the offending vehicle. It was further contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and baseless. The main defence taken was that the vehicle was insured with the insurer – second respondent and the insurance policy was in force as on the date of the accident.

¶34

The respondent No.2 – insurer denying the petition averments contended that the claimant was not wearing helmet with ISI mark due to which she has sustained injuries. The appellant herself has contributed for the cause of the accident; the rider of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to ride the said vehicle; the compensation claimed was highly excessive and exorbitant. On these set of grounds, the insurer sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶35

¶36

On the basis of the pleadings, issues were

¶37

framed and answered allowing the claim petition in part awarding total compensation of Rs.5,86,471/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

¶38

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

¶39

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the gravity of injuries sustained by the claimant vis-à-vis the impact of the injuries for the rest of her life. The compensation awarded is disproportionate with the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant which certainly warrants the interference of this Court. It was argued that the compensation awarded towards the different heads being meager and the same deserves to be enhanced substantially.

¶40

¶41

Learned counsel for the insurer would argue

¶42

that on profuse analysis of the material evidence, the

¶43

Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation which deserves to be confirmed dismissing the appeal.

¶44

We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶45

The wound certificate at Ex.P6 would

¶46

disclose that the appellant has sustained the following

¶47

injuries:

¶48

1]. Multiple Abrasions present at places over the body.

¶49

2]. Compound comminuted fracture of left femur [thigh bone].

¶50

Dr.D.J.Navinchand who was examined as PW2

¶51

has assessed the disability to the extent of 21% to the whole body. The appellant was admitted to the hospital on 20.09.2017, underwent surgery and was discharged from the hospital on 22.09.2017.

¶52

¶53

The injured was aged about 29 years and

¶54

was working as Junior Executive [ATM] at Airport Authority of India and drawing salary of Rs.1,15,000/p.m. The leave certificate at Ex.P11 would reveal that she took earned leave for a period of 50 days. The Tribunal considering the pay slip of the injured produced and marked as Ex.P14 relating to the month of December 2017 though taken the salary of Rs.88,694/- earned by the claimant, deducted the encashment benefit, basic, DA and HRA along with the income tax and profession tax. As per the settled legal principle what has to be deducted is only the income tax of Rs.4,256/- and the profession tax of Rs.200/-. Accordingly, the monthly income earned by the injured would be Rs.84,238/-. The loss of income during the laid period of 50 days would work out to Rs.1,40,396/as against Rs.88,020/- determined by the Tribunal.

¶55

Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the impact of the same,

¶56

¶57

we deem it appropriate to award a sum Rs.50,000/-

¶58

towards pain and sufferings; a sum of Rs.1,00,000/towards damages due to disability; a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities; a sum of Rs.25,000/towards Attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges; and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards future medication as against the compensation determined by the Tribunal under these heads.

¶59

For the reasons aforesaid, the total

¶60

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed as under:

¶61

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount [in Rs.]
1.	Painand suffering	50,000/-
2.	Loss of income during laid up period andrest period	1,40,396/-
3.	Medicalexpenses	3,63,451/-
4.	Reduced eligibility of employment ordamages due to disability	1,00,000/-
5.	Loss of amenities	50,000/-
6.	Attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges	25,000/-
7.	Futuremedication	25,000/-
	Total	7,53,847/-

¶62

- 9 -

¶63

Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.7,53,847/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

¶64

Hence, the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i] Appeal is allowed in part.

¶67

ii] The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.7,53,847/- as against Rs.5,86,471/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶68

iii] The insurance company shall deposit the reassessed total compensation determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from

¶69

10 -

¶70

the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.

¶71

iv] The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability and disbursement remains intact.

¶72

v] The modified compensation shall be disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.

¶73

vi] Draw modified award accordingly.

¶74

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

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

¶76

Sd/JUDGE

¶77

NC.

Smt. Kanika Agrawal v. Sri. Chetan Reddy. B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kanika Agrawal v. Sri. Chetan Reddy. B

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

Sri. Murthy v Vs M/S. Ama Logistics

Smt. Nagarathnamma Vs Kariyappa

Smt M R Vijayakumari Vs Bharath Pawar R

Nishanth N R Vs Jagadish B R

Shri. C. N. Kumar Vs the Branch Manager

Rajashekhar J.K Vs Dheeraj Kumar