Partly allowed

Smt Harivarthini v. Mr Murugan R

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2021MFA/464/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka enhanced the compensation awarded to a motor accident victim. The court revised the functional disability from 10% to 21% and increased the compensation amount from approximately Rs. 21.33 lakhs to Rs. 31.24 lakhs, along with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 31,23,984/- plus interest at 6% p.a.; judgment of the Tribunal modified.

Smt Harivarthini Vs Mr Murugan R — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

M.F.A. NO.464 OF 2021 (MV-I)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. HARIVARTHINI D/O NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.19B1, RAJ FLATS, 5TH STREET, GANGAI NAGAR, VELACHERRY, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU STATE-600 042.

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI K.P. BHUVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MR. MURUGAN R

¶15

MAJOR, S/O RANAMANIKYAM, R/AT NO.26/1, 6TH CROSS, K.B. TEMPLE, 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.

¶16

HDFC ERGO GEN. INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.25/1, 2ND FLOOR, BUILDING NO.2, SHANKAR NARAYAN BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

¶19

(BY SRI S. NAGARAJA ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶20

¶21

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.10.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.1047/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SCJ AND MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-17, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, against the judgment dated 14.10.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-17) (hereinafter referred to as 'the MACT' for short).

¶25

Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated

¶26

are that on 27.11.2016 at about 11.45 a.m., when the claimant - Harivarthini was proceeding in a car along with others on Bengaluru - Mysore NH-275 road, near Punith Farm at that time, a tanker lorry driven by its driver in a rash

¶27

¶28

and negligent manner dashed against the said car. As a result of the said accident, she sustained grievous injuries. She was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, wherein First Aid was administered and after necessary treatment, she was shifted to Fortis Hospital, wherein she took treatment as an inpatient.

¶29

The claimant thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act contending that she was aged 29 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.51,000/- by working in HCL Technologies Ltd. and due to the impact of the accident, the claimant is unable to carry on with the work as before. It was also pleaded that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tanker lorry. The claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.80,00,000/- along with interest.

¶30

In spite of service of notice to respondent No.1,

¶31

he remained absent and was placed exparte.

¶32

The 2nd respondent appeared through their counsel and filed separate written statement. The

¶33

¶34

respondent No.2 inter alia pleaded that the claim petition is not maintainable. It was pleaded that the offending vehicle was validly insured with Respondent No.2 and that the compensation, if any, is to be payable by the insurance company. The Insurance Company further denied that the mode and manner of the accident. The age, occupation, income and injuries sustained by the claimant were denied. It was also pleaded that liability of the insurance company to the compensation, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It was also pleaded that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. It was also stated that the compensation claimed by the claimant is highly excessive, speculative and exorbitant.

¶35

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove her case, examined H R Manager as PW1, examined herself as PW2, Medical Record Officer of Forties Hospital as PW3 and Dr.Shihari as PW4 and got exhibited documents namely

¶36

¶37

Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. The 2nd respondent did not choose to adduce evidence nor produce any document.

¶38

The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the tanker lorry by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.21,33,040/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶39

Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the claimant as Rs.47,250/- per month instead of Rs.51,000/per month. He further submitted that the Tribunal assessed the functional disability of the claimant at 10% instead of 64% as assessed by the doctor. He further submits that the compensation awarded under the other conventional head and the same may be enhanced.

¶40

Learned counsel for the insurer submitted that

¶41

the Tribunal considering the evidence on record and also the

¶42

¶43

avocation of the clamant has rightly assessed the functional disability of the claimant at 10%. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and the claimant is not entitled for enhancement of compensation.

¶44

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

¶45

Admittedly, the claimant has produced medical records at Exs.P12 to P.18 and examined the doctor P.W.4 to substantiate her claim that because of accidental injuries that she has suffered functional disability. The P.W.4 Dr. Srihari, who is not a doctor who has treated the claimant for the injuries has deposed before the Tribunal that the claimant has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 64% to the whole body. He has further stated that claimant presently C/O memory loss, C/o, difficulty in walking. On examination patient has (L)Hemiparesis and higher mental function deficits Patient was advised MRI Brain and Neuropsychologist opinion. Ex.P.13 wound

¶46

¶47

certificate also discloses that the claimant suffered severe Traumatic Brain Injury with diffuse Axonal injury SAH. However, the Tribunal, contrary to the medical evidence on record has assessed the disability at 10% instead of assessing the disability at 21% i.e., 1/3rd of the functional disability assessed by the doctor who has not treated the claimant. Hence, it is held that the claimant has suffered 21% functional disability.

¶48

The claimant to substantiate her claim that she was earning Rs.51,000/- per month has produced four salary slips at Ex.P.3 and examined P.w.1 Rohith who was working as H.R. Manager, HCL Technologies Limited who has deposed that the claimant was working in the said company as Deputy Manager since 8.9.2016 and her monthly salary for February 2017 was Rs.47,247/-. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P.3 has rightly assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.42,600/- per month after deducting Rs.4,667/- per month towards income tax.

¶49

The claimant was aged 29 years as on the date of the accident. Hence, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.18,24,984/- (42,600 x 12 x 17x 21%) as

¶50

¶51

against Rs.8,69,040/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards "pain and sufferings" which is on the lower side having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the same is enhanced to Rs.75,000/-. The compensation awarded under other conventional heads is just and proper and the same is maintained.

¶52

Thus, the claimant is held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.31,23,984/- as against Rs.21,33,040/-. Needless to state that the aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.9,90,944/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization of the amount. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the claims Tribunal is modified.

¶53

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Smt Harivarthini v. Mr Murugan R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Harivarthini v. Mr Murugan R

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. Divakar.J Vs Mr. Guruprasad Dinakar

The Manager Vs Rathnamma

The Manager Vs Rathnamma

Sri Kariyappa @ Venktachala Vs Sri Nagaraju

Rathnamma Vs the Divisional Controller

M/S. Asian Paints Industrial Coatings Limited Vs the State of Karnataka