Partly allowed

Shivaranajani @ Ranjani v. N Huchegowda

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2021MFA/4822/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Motor Financial Appeal challenged the compensation award of Rs.1,44,000 in a motor accident case. The High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,00,800 by recalculating heads like pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and future earning based on medical evidence and notional income.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.1,44,000 to Rs.2,00,800 with interest; respondent directed to deposit difference within six weeks.

Shivaranajani @ Ranjani Vs N Huchegowda — Medical Negligence | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

¶6

MFA No.4822 OF 2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHIVARANJANI @ RANJANI W/O.Y.B. PRAKASHA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDENT OF YALECHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK-573 211, HASSAN DISTRICT. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O BHARATHI, UDAYAGIRI EXTENSION, N.D.R. COLLEGE ROAD, HASSAN-573102.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. G.M. SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHETHAN B, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

N. HUCHEGOWDA

¶13

S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, MAJOR, RESIDENT OF BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573 201.

¶14

¶15

THE GENERAL MANAGER, UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., K.V.D. TOWER NO.743, 2^ND FLOOR, ABOVE BOLIK LANE FINANCE, IN FRONT OF 100 FEET ROAD, MADRAS ROAD, INDIRA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 036

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. H.N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 D/W)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1342/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal lays challenge to the judgment passed

¶22

by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Hassan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal, for short) in MVC No.1342/2010, whereby the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.1,44,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. for the

¶23

¶24

injury sustained by the claimant in a road traffic accident.

¶25

The briefs facts case of claimaint is that on

¶26

18.06.2010 at about 4.30 p.m she along with her husband Prakash were going by walk on left side of the road, near Meridian Hotel, S.B.G. Theatre, Hassan City, at that time a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA13-S-8177 being driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. Due to the said impact, the petitioner sustained injuries and was admitted in Hemavathi Hospital, Hassan, where she was treated as an inpatient and injuries have resulted in permanent disability affecting her loss of future earning capacity. Hence, she has filed an appeal claiming compensation.

¶27

On service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their separate written statements and denied the entire averments made in the petition.

¶28

¶29

Respondent No.2 contended that compensation claimed is exorbitant. The liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The rider of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. It was pleaded that the owner of the offending vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was further pleaded that the claimant has falsely implicated the offending vehicle in the accident in order to get compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1, Dr. Ramakrishnabhat was examined as PW-2 and got marked documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. On behalf of the respondents, they did not examine any witness but marked Ex.R.1 - Hospital

¶31

¶32

intimation letter. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,44,000/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the claimant has preferred this appeal.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶34

perused the appeal memo, impugned judgment and also trial Court records.

¶35

Sri. G.M. Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for Sri. Chethan B, learned counsel for claimant contended that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the evidence of doctor and disability sustained by her. The income taken by the Tribunal itself is on the lower side

¶36

¶37

and the compensation awarded under various heads such as pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of income during laid up period, future medical expenses, food and nourishment are on the lower side. The claimant has adduced the evidence of the doctor. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶38

On the other hand, Sri. H.N. Keshava Prashanth, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the judgment and contended that Tribunal after taking into consideration of all the aspects, has awarded the compensation which is just and fair and needs no interference. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶39

It is not in dispute that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.

¶40

¶41

As per the evidence of Doctor, the petitioner

¶42

has suffered fracture of neck of right femur and also abrasion. Accordingly, the injured sustained one simple injury and two grievous injuries. It is also evident that the claimant has undergone surgery. The doctor has opined that there was disability of 20% and another Rs.20,000/- is required for future medical expenses.

¶43

From the medical evidence, it is evident that the petitioner has sustained fracture of neck of right femur and she was inpatient for a period of four days from 18.06.2010 to 21.06.2010. The medical records are also produced. Looking into the expenses incurred and nature of injury sustained and she was inpatient for a period of four days, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded instead of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards the head 'Pain and suffering'. In so far as medical expenses is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Towards Special diet, nursing,

¶44

¶45

extra nourishment and conveyance charges, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/-. Looking into the period of treatment and nature of injury, the same requires to be enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in consultation with the Insurance Companies, the notional income in the absence of proof of income to be adopted for the year 2010 is Rs.5,500/- per month. However, the claimant has pleaded that she was earning Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, the same is restricted to Rs.5,000/-. Looking into the nature of fracture, she requires rest for a period of three months. Therefore, under the head of loss of earning capacity during laid up period, the compensation is enhanced to a sum of Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.4,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Regarding the loss of future earning, the Tribunal has taken disability at 6% to the whole body, which I deem is appropriate. Taking the notional income at Rs.5,000/-, given the age of the petitioner,

¶46

¶47

the multiplier applicable is ‘18’. Thus, on the count of loss of future income, a sum of Rs. 64,800/- (Rs.5,000 x 12 x 18 x 6%)is awarded towards 'loss of future income' to the petitioner. Towards loss of amenities of life, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner has sustained fracture of femur. She has to suffer this disability throughout her life. Therefore, towards 'loss of amenities' a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The doctor has stated that claimant requires one more surgery for the purpose of removal of implants. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-, looking to the nature of treatment and fracture, I deem it appropriate to enhance to a sum of Rs.15,000/towards the head 'Future medical expenses', which shall not carry any interest. Thus, petitioner would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,88,000/- as against Rs.1,44,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶48

¶49

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

¶50

compensation:

¶51

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and suffering	20,000	30,000
Medical expenses	40,000	40,000
Special diet, nursing, extra nourishment and conveyance charges	5,000	8,000
Attendant charges	3,000	3,000
Loss of income during treatment period	4,000	15,000
Loss of future earning	51,840	64,800
Towards loss of amenities	10,000	25,000
Future medical expenses	10,000	15,000
Total	1,43,840	2,00,800

¶52

Thus, petitioner would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,43,840/- as against Rs.2,00,800/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶53

Hence, the following:

¶54

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part.

¶57

ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.2,00,800 (Rupees Two Lakh Eight Hundred only) as against Rs.1,44,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of the claim petition till its realization. The future medical expenses do not carry any interest.

¶58

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

¶59

iv) The respondent No.2 shall make good of the difference amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.

¶60

Costs made easy.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

Shivaranajani @ Ranjani v. N Huchegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaranajani @ Ranjani v. N Huchegowda

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

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri Muniyappa S/O Anjanappa

Sri. Padmanabha Vs Narasimha Reddy D

Sri Ningegowda Vs Mohankumar D

Mr. Udaya Kumar Shetty @ Udaya Kumar Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Mujeeb Pasha Vs Mohammed Rafi

Mrs. Gowramma Vs the Manager Legal