Partly allowed

Sharanesh M @ Charanesh M v. M/S Reliance General Insurace Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2021MFA/8429/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Miscellaneous First Appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award, revising the total compensation from Rs.1,83,800 to Rs.3,02,520 by recalculating loss of future earnings based on a 9% whole body disability and a notional income of Rs.7,000 per month.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.3,02,520/-, carrying 6% p.a. interest from the date of the claim petition.

Sharanesh M @ Charanesh M Vs M/S Reliance General… — Medical Negligence | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8429 OF 2014 (MV)

¶6

Between:

¶7

SHARANESH M @ CHARANESH M S/O. M.MUNIYAPPA @ MUNEEPPA AGED 27 YEARS R/AT. NO.9, 1^ST FLOOR, 4^TH CROSS M.G.PALYA MAIN ROAD B.HALLI BANGALORE – 560 068.

¶8

... APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. K.V.SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

M/S.RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. SRI. BALAJI ENCLAVE NO.82, 16^TH MAIN ABOVE BATA SHOW ROOM BTM LAYOUT BANGALORE – 560 068 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶12

MALAR VILY N.

¶13

MAJOR, FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT R/AT. NO. 97, GOWTHAM NAGAR TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHAPURA BANGALORE – 560 022. ... RESPONDENTS

¶14

¶15

(BY SRI. D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 NOTICE TO R.2 IS DISPENSED WITH.)

¶16

¶17

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 2.9.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.6292/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 8^TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 33^RD ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

THIS MISELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 02.09.2014 in MVC No.6292/2012 passed by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH No.5), the petitioner therein has preferred this appeal.

¶21

The parties are referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶22

¶23

The case of the petitioner is that on 12.07.2012

¶24

at about 4.15 p.m. he was crossing Hosur Service Road in

¶25

front of New Gautham Bar, near Hosa Road Junction, Bengaluru. At that time a Tempo bearing registration No. KA-40-1585 being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against the petitioner. Due to the said impact, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Hence, he preferred MVC No.6292/2012 and claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

¶26

The offending vehicle belongs to respondent No.2 and is duly insured by respondent No.1. Upon service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and respondent No. 1 - Insurance Co. appeared and filed objections denying the petition averments. The petitioner to prove his case examined two witnesses and got marked Exs. P.1 to P.15. The respondent No.1 – Insurance Co. examined one witness and got marked two documents as Exs. R.1 and R.2. The Tribunal based upon the pleadings and evidence of the parties has awarded a compensation

¶27

¶28

of Rs.1,83,800/- to the petitioner with interest at 8% p.a.

¶29

from the date of claim petition till its realization. Not satisfied by the same, the petitioner has preferred this appeal.

¶30

The case of the petitioner is that, Tribunal

¶31

erred in appreciating the injuries and has taken the income of the petitioner on the lower side, and accordingly has awarded a lower compensation.

¶32

The factum of accident and the injuries

¶33

sustained by the petitioner is not in dispute. The question that arises for consideration is, the percentage of whole body disability that has been sustained by the petitioner and the quantum of compensation that he is entitled to.

¶34

The petitioner is said to have been a driver. However, no evidence is adduced to prove the same. The accident happened in the year 2012. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, where there is no proof of income, the notional income

¶35

¶36

fixed for 2012 is Rs.7,000/- per month. P.W.2 is the doctor who has treated the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner had sustained 41.6% disability to the right leg and the whole body disability at 13.8%. However, in the cross examination, he admits that the fracture has united. However, his evidence suggests that as the fracture is to the ankle, the disability is permanent. Given the fact that the fracture has united, considering the whole body disability at 13.9% appears to be on the higher side and this Court is of the opinion to fix the permanent body disability at 9%. It is further stated, the petitioner was hospitalized for 9 days.

¶37

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of

¶38

Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. It seems to be appropriate.

¶39

Towards medical expenses, based on actual

¶40

bills, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.88,800/-. We deem the said to be correct.

¶41

¶42

No compensation has been awarded on

¶43

account of nourishment, food and conveyance expenses. Given the fact that the petitioner an inpatient for a period of 9 days, we deem it appropriate to award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- under this head.

¶44

No amount has been awarded on account of loss of income during the period of treatment. Given the nature of the injury, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner will have to be laid up for a period of three months and taking his income at Rs.7,000/- per month, a sum of Rs.21,000/- is awarded under this head.

¶45

Towards loss of future earning capacity due to disability, no amount has been awarded, but the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and disabilities put together. As discussed above, the total body disability to the petitioner is 9% and taking his income at Rs.7,000/- per month and his age as 26 years at the time of the accident and the multiplier of

¶46

¶47

‘17’ being applicable, a sum of Rs.1,28,520/- (Rs.7,000/-

¶48

x 12 x 17 x 9%) is awarded towards loss of future earning.

¶49

Towards future medical expenses, a sum of

¶50

Rs.15,000/- is awarded by the Tribunal and the same is retained.

¶51

Towards loss of amenities along with disability, as mentioned above, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded by the Tribunal. As disability aspect has been separately considered, towards loss of amenities, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded.

¶52

Thus the petitioner shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,02,520/-. Hence, the following order :

¶53

(i) The appeal is partly allowed .

¶54

(ii) The appellant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.3,02,520/- as against Rs.1,83,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶55

¶56

(iii) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest of 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶57

The respondent No.1 shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with due interest, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶58

The amount shall be disbursed as per the terms of the award of the Tribunal.

¶59

No order as to costs.

¶60

Sd/- JUDGE

¶61

Mgn/-

Sharanesh M @ Charanesh M v. M/S Reliance General Insurace Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharanesh M @ Charanesh M v. M/S Reliance General Insurace Co. 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

Sri Muddappa Vs Sri Gangadharaiah S. G.

Master Sunil Vs the Managing Director

Sri Hanumanthappa H Siddlingappanavar Vs Smt. Leelavathi P Mahale

Icici Lombard General Insurance Vs Smt Minati Majhi W/O Late Suresh Majhi

Kum Maitri Vs Vinod S Gadekar

Smt Minati Majhi Vs Smt Kamalkeshwari