Partly allowed

Sri Ashoka M D v. D R Krishnamurthy

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2021MFA/4549/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in an appeal filed by an injured claimant. While the appeal was filed to enhance compensation, the court modified the Tribunal's award, enhancing specific heads of damages like pain and suffering, conveyance, and loss of future income based on corrected disability percentage and notional income. The appeal was allowed in part.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and award of the Tribunal modified granting compensation of Rs.1,90,700/- with interest at 6% per annum against Rs.1,50,800/-.

Sri Ashoka M D Vs D R Krishnamurthy — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

M.F.A.NO.4549/2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI ASHOKA M.D., S/O DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDENT OF MARANAHALLI VILLAGE SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201. … APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI NINGARAJA M.N., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . D.R.KRISHNAMURTHY S/O RANGAIAH AGE: MAJOR KINDIPURA VILLAGE KUPPAHALLI POST, HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.

¶12

2 . MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., MADIKERI REPRESENTED BY BRANCH OFFICER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., CHANDANA COMPLEX HARSHAMAHAL ROAD HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201. … RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI K.KISHOR KUMAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 05.12.2017 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶14

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.10.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1743/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶16

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH ‘VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

¶19

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.1743/2008 dated 01.10.2012 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Hassan questioning the quantum of compensation.

¶20

The claimant, who met with an accident on 26.01.2008 in the claim petition contends that due to the accident, he has suffered permanent disability and he could not continue his work. In support of his contention, he examined himself as P.W.1 and examined the Doctor as P.W.2 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P8. The second respondent

¶21

¶22

Insurance Company examined a witness as R.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R3.

¶23

The learned counsel for the claimant would

¶24

vehemently contend that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the income at Rs.4,000/- per month and also committed an error in taking the disability at 9%, though the Doctor, who has been examined as P.W.2 deposed that there is 30% disability to particular limb. Hence, it requires interference of this Court and the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation on all the heads.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has rightly considered the disability at 9% as against 30% deposed by the Doctor to a particular limb and the Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation on all the heads.

¶26

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the records, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are:

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

(ii) What order?

¶30

Point No.(i)

¶31

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of Ex.P3-wound certificate, it is not in dispute that the claimant has suffered fracture lateral malleolus, fracture tarsal bone and undisplaced fracture of metatarsal bone and the Doctor, who has been examined as P.W.2 has assessed the disability at 30% and not assessed the disability to whole body and hence, the Tribunal has taken the disability at 9%. The Tribunal ought to have taken 1/3^rd which comes to 10%. The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month and in the absence of any documentary proof regarding income, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income which would be Rs.4,500/- per month.

¶32

Having perused the material on record and the

¶33

accident has taken place in the year 2008, it requires

¶34

¶35

enhancement on the head of pain and suffering since, the claimant has suffered three fractures and the same is enhanced to Rs.40,000/- as against Rs.30,000/-.

¶36

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses and the same is based on the documentary proof and the same does not require any interference of this Court.

¶37

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss

¶38

of amenities and the same does not require any interference of this Court.

¶39

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- on the head of conveyance, attendant charges, food and nourishment. On perusal of the case sheet, it is evident that the claimant was inpatient for a period of 11 days and the accident took place in the year 2008. Hence, it is appropriate to award Rs.10,000/- on the head of conveyance and incidental expenses, including food and nourishment as against Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶40

¶41

The Tribunal has taken only two months salary for

¶42

calculating loss of earning during laid up period and when the claimant has suffered three fractures and it requires time for reuniting the fractures and rest, it is appropriate to take three months salary. Having taken the income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/-, the loss of earning during laid up period comes to Rs.13,500/- (4,500x3).

¶43

Insofar as loss of future income is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.77,800/-. Taking the income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/- per month, disability at 10% and relevant multiplier as 18, the loss of future income comes to Rs.97,200/(4,500x12x18x10/100).

¶44

After revisiting compensation on all the heads, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,90,700/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.1,50,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶45

Point No.(ii)

¶46

In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶47

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶50

(ii) The judgment and award of the Tribunal passed in M.V.C.No.1743/2008 dated 01.10.2012 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Hassan is modified granting compensation of Rs.1,90,700/- as against Rs.1,50,800/- with interest at 6% per annum.

¶51

(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation within six weeks from today.

¶52

(iv) The registry is directed to transmit the TCR to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Sri Ashoka M D v. D R Krishnamurthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ashoka M D v. D R Krishnamurthy

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

The Legal Manager Vs Sayeed Nayaz

The Legal Manager Vs Rajanna

The Legal Manager Vs Noorullakhan

Kavitha Nayak Vs Prabhakar Kulal

Mr Mohammed Irfan @ Irfan Vs the National Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Divisional Manager Vs Asha