Partly allowed

Mr Sanjeeva Gowda v. B N Adinarayana Guptha

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2021MFA/6461/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Bengaluru allowed the appeal in part while hearing a First Appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.58,671 to Rs.1,14,271 based on nature of injuries, lack of doctor examination, and period of treatment, directing the insurer to deposit the amount.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and Award of Tribunal modified to grant enhanced compensation of Rs.1,14,271/- with interest at 6% per annum from date of petition; Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within six wee

Mr Sanjeeva Gowda Vs B N Adinarayana Guptha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

M.F.A.NO.6461/2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Mr. SANJEEVA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O SESA GOWDA R/AT. BOLMA HOUSE DHARMASTHALA VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK-574214

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI KARUNAKAR P, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . B.N.ADINARAYAN GUPTHA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O B. NANJAYYA R/AT MAIN BAZAAR MADAKASIRA VILLAGE AND TALUK ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT A.P.STATE-515 001

¶13

2 . THE MANAGER UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGD. OFFICE 201 20B CRYSTAL PLAZA OPP: LUFLIND MALT ROAD ANDHERI(WEST), MUMBAI-58

¶14

… RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI B.C.SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 24.11.2016)

¶16

¶17

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.07.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.981/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, BELTHANGADY, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Though this appeal is listed for admission today, with

¶21

the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

¶22

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the Judgment and Award dated 25.07.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.981/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and MACT., at Belthangady (‘the Tribunal’ for short), questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶23

The factual matrix of the case is that on

¶24

13.02.2010 at about 6:20 a.m, the appellant/claimant was proceeding from Dharmasthala to Kanyadi in his Jeep bearing

¶25

¶26

registration No.CNA 2510, in Dharmasthala-Ujire road, when he reached near to Marigudi of Dharmasthala village one Thoofan Maxi Cab bearing registration No.AP-02-V-5669 came from Ujire side driven by its driver with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Jeep. As a result, the claimant had sustained grievous injuries.

¶27

The claimant in order to substantiate his case, he examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P8. The respondents have not led any evidence, however, got marked the copy of the insurance policy as Ex.R1.

¶28

The Tribunal, after considering both oral and

¶29

documentary evidence available on record, allowed the claim petition of the petitioner in part granting compensation of Rs.58,671/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till payment. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the claimant.

¶30

¶31

The claimant before the Tribunal has contended that due to the accident, he has suffered permanent disability, particularly, he has suffered fracture of superior pubic rami ®, fracture of 2^nd and 3^rd ribs ® and fracture of leapula ®. He was an inpatient for a period of 12 days at KMC Hospital. The Tribunal has committed an error in awarding meager compensation of Rs.58,671/including the medical bills to the tune of Rs.22,771/-. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-Insurance Company would submit that the accident is of the year 2010, he was aged about 59 years and the Doctor also not examined. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation and it does not require any interference by this Court.

¶33

8. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel

¶34

appearing for the appellant/claimant and learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-Insurance Company and on perusal of the grounds urged in the appeal and the

¶35

¶36

materials available on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:

¶37

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

¶38

(ii) What order?

¶39

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):

¶40

Having heard the respective counsel and on

¶41

perusal of the material available on record, the accident is of

¶42

the year 2010 and he has suffered three fractures i.e., fracture of superior pubic rami ®, fracture of 2^nd and 3^rd ribs ® and fracture of leapula ® and he was an inpatient for a period of 12 days. Having taken note of the nature of the injuries and the fractures sustained and also the year of the accident i.e., 2010, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.35,000/- as against Rs.20,000/- on the head of ‘pain and sufferings’.

¶43

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/-

¶44

towards ‘loss of amenities in future life’. When the injured

¶45

¶46

was not examined the Doctor and proved the disability, the question of ‘loss of amenities in future life’ does not arise. However, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.22,771/towards the ‘medical expenses’ based on the medical bills, which have been placed before the Tribunal. Hence, it does not require any interference of this Court.

¶47

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,400/towards ‘Loss of earning during treatment’ and failed to take note of the fact that the claimants had suffered the fracture of superior pubic rami ®, fracture of 2^nd and 3^rd ribs ® and fracture of leapula ® and in order to unite the fractures, minimum three months rest is required. Hence, it is appropriate to take the notional income of Rs.5,500/- per month. Having taken the same for a period of three months, it comes to Rs.16,500/- (5500x3) towards ‘Loss of earning during treatment’.

¶48

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.6,000/under the head of ‘Conveyance, Nourishments and Attendant charges’. The claimant was an inpatient for a period of 12

¶49

¶50

days and it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.10,000/under the head of ‘Conveyance, Nourishments and Attendant charges’.

¶51

The claimant has not examined any Doctor. However, in the absence of evidence of the Doctor regarding disability is concerned, this Court can award an amount of Rs.30,000/- on the head of ‘disability” taking note of his age 57 years at the time of the accident and the fractures suffered by him without assessing ‘the future loss of earning’.

¶52

In the circumstances, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,14,271/- as against Rs.58,671/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment.

¶53

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶54

following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶57

¶58

(ii) The Judgment and Award dated 25.07.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.981/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and MACT., at Belthangady, is modified granting compensation of Rs.1,14,271/as against Rs.58,671/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment.

¶59

(iii) The respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within six weeks from today.

¶60

(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

cp*

Mr Sanjeeva Gowda v. B N Adinarayana Guptha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Sanjeeva Gowda v. B N Adinarayana Guptha

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

M/S Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Mr Chandashekar T M

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs v M Sundar

Smt.Rathnamma Vs Chief Executive Engineer

Sri Patalappa Vs Sri Venkataramanappa

Manjunatha Vs Nagaraja Kayakada

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Gowramma