Partly allowed

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

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2021MFA/7574/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a first appeal filed against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. The Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 3,22,293 to Rs. 4,19,653 by adjusting heads for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, future income, and medical expenses, and correcting the multiplier applied.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 4,19,653/- with interest at 6% per annum; respondent directed to deposit within six weeks.

Sri C Ramamurthy @ Kempanna Vs United Indian… — 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.7574/2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI C. RAMAMURTHY @ KEMPANNA S/O CHIKKA MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NAYANAHALLI VILLAGE, HARAGADDE POST, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-562 106.

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI G.V.SHASHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . UNITED INDIAN INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 10/4, MITRA TOWERS, KASTURBA ROAD, BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶13

2 . M/S. ALLIANCE BUSINESS SCHOOL PVT. LTD., #2 AND 3, 2^ND CROSS, DOLLARS SCHEME, 36^TH MAIN, BTM 1^ST STAGE, BENGALURU-560 068 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶14

… RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI Y.P.VENKATAPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.07.2013 PASSED IN MVC.NO.3851/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 21^ST ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 19^TH ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶21

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.3851/2012 dated 12.07.2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and XXI Additional Small Causes Judge & XIX ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, (SCCH-XXIII) questioning the quantum of compensation.

¶22

The factual matrix of the case is that the claimant in

¶23

the accident dated 08.02.2012 had suffered the injuries and it is his claim that, he was admitted to the hospital and was inpatient for a period of 12 days.

¶24

¶25

In support of his claim, he examined a witness as P.W.1 and examined the Doctor from Live Hundred Hospital as P.W.2 and also got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P22. The case sheet, x-ray and five out patient slips are marked as Exs.P20 to P22.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the claimant would

¶27

contend that the claimant has suffered left segmental fracture of femur and left radial styloid sustained by the claimant has been united. The Doctor has assessed the disability at 30.72% to his left lower limb and 10.24% to whole body. However, the Tribunal has taken the disability at 8%. The Tribunal has assessed the loss of future income by taking the income of the claimant as Rs.6,000/- per month, disability at 8% and applied the relevant multiplier 14, as he was aged about 42 years. The Tribunal, in all awarded compensation of Rs.3,22,293/- with interest at 6% per annum. Hence, the learned counsel for the claimant would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs.20,000/- on the head of pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- on the head of loss of amenities and

¶28

¶29

Rs.10,000/- towards future medical expenses and the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income, while calculating the loss of future income and the loss of income during laid up period. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶30

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal has considered the compensation on all the heads and little enhancement is required only on the head of pain and suffering and in all other heads, just and reasonable compensation has been awarded.

¶31

Having heard the arguments of respective counsel

¶32

and also on perusal of the material available on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:

¶33

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

¶34

(ii) What order?

¶35

¶36

Point No.(i)

¶37

Having perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal, an amount of Rs.1,84,653/- awarded towards medical expenses is based on the records and it does not require any interference of this Court.

¶38

However, it is to be noted that accident is of the year 2012 and the amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded on the head of pain and suffering is on the lesser side and the same is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-.

¶39

The Tribunal awarded Rs.12,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. Admittedly, the accident has taken place in the year 2012 and the notional income would be Rs.6,500/- per month, however, the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.6,000/- per month. Having taken note of the nature of femur fracture and other fracture, in order to unite the fracture and rest, it requires minimum 4 months. Hence, a sum of Rs.26,000/- (6,500x4) is awarded as against Rs.12,000/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶40

¶41

The Tribunal also awarded Rs.5,000/- on the head of nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges. Admittedly, the claimant was inpatient for a period of 12 days. Hence, it is appropriate to award Rs.12,000/- on the head of other incidental charges, including nourishment, attendant charges.

¶42

The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- on the head of loss of amenities. The Doctor has assessed the disability of 30.72% to the left lower limb and 10.24% to the whole body. When such being the case, it is appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.25,000/- as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶43

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- on the head of future medical expenses though, the Doctor has stated that Rs.30,000/- is required. Hence, it is appropriate to award Rs.15,000/- as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶44

The Tribunal has committed an error in taking the multiplier as 14, instead of 15% though the wound certificate discloses the age of the claimant as 40 years. In the discharge summary also, the age of the claimant is mentioned as 40 years.

¶45

¶46

Hence, the relevant multiplier applicable is 15. Taking the income of the claimant at Rs.6,500/- per month, applying the relevant multiplier 15 and the disability at 10%, the loss of future income works out to Rs.1,17,000/(6,500x12x10x15/100).

¶47

Hence, in all the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,19,653/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.3,22,293/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶48

Point No.(ii)

¶49

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

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶52

(ii) The judgment and award of the Tribunal passed in M.V.C.No.3851/2012 dated 12.07.2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and XXI Additional Small Causes Judge & XIX ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, (SCCH-XXIII) is modified granting compensation of Rs.4,19,653/- as against Rs.3,22,293/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum.

¶53

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Thippesha Vs Ranganatha

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt Murali

Smt Pushpalatha Vs Umesh