Partly allowed

Thippesha v. Ranganatha

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2021MFA/4560/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Motor Accident Claims appeal concerned the quantum of compensation awarded by a Tribunal for a motor vehicle injury. The High Court modified the award, enhancing compensation for loss of income, pain and sufferings, and other heads, directing the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs.1,04,845/- with 6% interest from date of petition; insurer directed to deposit within six weeks.

Thippesha Vs Ranganatha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

M.F.A.NO.4560/2019 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THIPPESHA S/O THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, BANANA MERCHANT, R/O. EDEHALLI VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526. … APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI N.K.SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . RANGANATHA S/O NAGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OWNER OF THE HERO HONDA SPLENDOR PLUS MOTOR CYCLE BEARING REG.NO.KA-20/V-4701, R/O NO.11-3-57, MOODANEDMBUR BANNANJE UDUPI, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 101.

¶12

2 . THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SHIVANARADAMUNI PLAZA, M.C.C. ‘B’ BLOCK, DENTAL COLLEGE ROAD, DAVANAGERE CITY-577 004. REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. … RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI SHIVARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶14

¶15

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 26.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1542/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND MACT, HOLALKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶16

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

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

Though this matter is listed for orders today, with the consent of both the learned counsel it is taken up for final disposal.

¶19

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the Judgment and Award dated 26.09.2018 passed in M.V.C.No.1542/2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and MACT., at Holalkere (‘the Tribunal’ for short), questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶20

The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

¶21

¶22

The factual matrix of the case is that the claimant met with an accident on 27.07.2016. As a result, he has suffered grievous injuries i.e., fracture of base of right V Metatarsal bone and sutured wound 7 cm long along dorsum of right foot. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Holalkere and thereafter, he shifted to Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, got admitted as an inpatient for a period of 5 days and operated for fracture of base of right V Metatarsal bone. He claims that he was a banana merchant and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.63,345/- including the medical expenses of Rs.26,345/-. Hence, the present appeal is filed.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of ‘loss of income during the laid-up period’. The compensation awarded on the head of ‘pain sufferings’ is very meager and also an amount of Rs.2,000/awarded towards ‘conveyance, attendant, food, nourishment charges’. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court.

¶24

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent/Insurance Company would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has taken note of the nature of the injuries and the Doctor has not been examined though he was subjected to surgery. Hence, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation. it does not require any interference of this Court.

¶26

Having heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-Insurance Company and on perusal of the grounds urged in the appeal and the materials available on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:

¶27

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

¶28

(ii) What order?

¶29

Point No.(i)

¶30

Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal

¶31

of the material available on record, particularly, Ex.P6 - wound certificate, which discloses he has suffered fracture of base of

¶32

¶33

right V Metatarsal bone and he was subjected to surgery and took the inpatient treatment. Having considered the material on record, I do not find any reasons to interfere with regard to the medical expenses is concerned, the same is based on the bills produced before the Tribunal. In respect of pain and suffering is concerned, he was an inpatient for a period of 5 days and also suffered fracture of base of right V Metatarsal bone. Hence, additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- to be awarded on the head of ‘pain and sufferings’. Apart from that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards ‘loss of amenities and happiness and frustration of life’ and the same has been retained. With regard to ‘Conveyance, attendant, food, nourishment charges’ Rs.5,000/- is just and reasonable as against Rs.2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶34

The Tribunal has not awarded the compensation

¶35

towards ‘loss of income during the laid up period’. The claimant has suffered fracture of base of right V Metatarsal bone and it requires minimum three months time to unite fracture and for rest. The accident was taken place in the year 2016. Hence, it is

¶36

¶37

appropriate to award an amount of Rs.28,500/- (9500x3) by taking the notional income of Rs.9,500/-.

¶38

In the circumstances, the appellant/claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,04,845/as against Rs.63,345/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶39

Point No.(ii)

¶40

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶41

following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶44

(ii) The Judgment and Award dated 26.09.2018 passed in M.V.C.No.1542/2016

¶45

on the file of Senior Civil Judge and MACT., at Holalkere, is modified granting compensation of Rs.1,04,845/- as against Rs.63,345/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶46

¶47

(iii) The respondent No.2/Insurance Company is

¶48

directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount within six weeks from today.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

cp*

Thippesha v. Ranganatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thippesha v. Ranganatha

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

Smt.Girija Vs the Managing Director

Smt.Manjula Vs Sri.H.P.Dayanand

Kumari Ambika Vs the Managing Director

Sri C Ramamurthy @ Kempanna Vs United Indian Insurance Company Ltd.

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt Murali

Smt Pushpalatha Vs Umesh