Partly allowed

Mrs. Saritha v. Mr. Rajesh Correa

Karnataka HC30 Sept 2021MFA/92/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in a motor accident case. The Court modified the Tribunal's award by enhancing damages for loss of amenities and loss of income during laid-up period while retaining other heads, resulting in a total award of Rs. 2,20,096.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,20,096. Interest denied for 381 days of delay.

Mrs. Saritha Vs Mr. Rajesh Correa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶5

MFA NO.92 OF 2018 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

MRS. SARITHA S/O SANTHOSH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT MCC QUARTERS URWA MARKET ROAD URWA, MANGALURU TALUK D.K.DISTRICT – 575 007 … APPELLANT (BY SRI.G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND :

¶9

MR. RAJESH CORREA S/O JERRY CORREA, MAJOR R/AT CASHMIR COMPOUND ATTAVARA, BABU GUDDE MANGALURU TALUK D.K. DISTRICT – 575 004

¶10

UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. CITY TRADE CENTRE OPP. CIVIL HOSPITAL KADRI, MANGALURU, D.K. – 575 001 REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER … RESPONDENTS

¶11

(BY SRI. M. SUDHAKAR PAI, ADV. FOR R1 [ABSENT]; SRI. B. C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADV. FOR R2)

¶12

¶13

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.389/2015 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT MANGALURU, D.K., PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶14

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

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 11.08.2016 passed in MVC No.389/2015 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the petitioner therein has preferred this appeal.

¶17

The undisputed facts of the case are that on 20.11.2014 at about 10.00 a.m. the appellant while proceeding in her motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-19/EK-5416 met with an accident with an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-19/D-1034 on KB Katte road, Mangaluru. The offending vehicle is duly insured with respondent No.2. Accordingly, she

¶18

¶19

preferred MVC No.389/2015 before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

¶20

The appellant, to prove her case, got examined herself as PW.1 and another witness as PW.2 and produced Exs.P1 to P14. The respondents have not examined any witness but got marked one document as Ex.R1.

¶21

The Tribunal, based on the evidence let in, has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,25,096/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization. Not satisfied by the same, the claimant has preferred this appeal.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent no.2. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 is absent.

¶23

The factum of accident, negligence on the part of

¶24

the offending vehicle and that it was insured with respondent no.2 herein is not in dispute. The only

¶25

¶26

question that arises for consideration in this appeal is the quantum of compensation.

¶27

The claimant was aged 38 years at the time of the accident and was a Tailor. No proof of income has been adduced by the appellant. Hence, the Tribunal has adopted the notional income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month. We find the same to be on the lower side. 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 for the year 2014 is fixed at Rs.8,500/- per month. As per the medical evidence, she has sustained 16.5% permanent disability to one upper limb which may be taken at 5% disability to the whole body. Adopting the multiplier of 15 taking into consideration the age of the injured, the loss of future income comes to Rs.76,500/- (Rs.8,500/- x 12 x 15 x 5%). Towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of

¶28

¶29

Rs.20,000/-. I deem it appropriate to retain the same. Based on the evidence adduced, the medical expenses are quantified at Rs.66,096/-. I deem it appropriate to retain the same. The incidental expenses are awarded at Rs.12,000/-. I deem it appropriate to retain the same. Towards loss of amenities in life, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded by the Tribunal. I deem it appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.20,000/-. Towards loss of income during laid up period, a sum of Rs.12,000/- is awarded. Taking into consideration the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.8,500/- per month and the nature of injury which is a fracture, it would be appropriate to treat the laid up period as three months, and accordingly, a sum of Rs.25,500/is awarded in this regard.

¶30

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the enhanced amount are set out as per the table herein below:

¶31

¶32

Sl. No.	HEAD OF COMPENSATION	AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN RS.	AMOUNT AWARDED BY THIS COURT IN RS.
1	Pain and suffering	20,000-00	20,000-00
2	Medicalexpenses	66,096-00	66,096-00
3	Incidentalexpenses	12,000-00	12,000-00
4	Loss of amenities in life	15,000-00	20,000-00
5	Loss of income during laid up period	12,000-00	25,500-00
6	Loss of futureincome	-	76,500-00
	Total	125,096-00	220,096-00

¶33

Thus, the claimant is entitled for a compensation of

¶34

Rs.2,20,096/as against the compensation of Rs.1,25,096/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶35

It is also noticed that there was a delay of 381 days in filing the appeal and by order dated 09.07.2019, this Court has observed that the claimant shall not be entitled to any interest for the delayed period. Hence, the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i) The appeal is partly allowed; ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.2,20,096/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty

¶38

¶39

Thousand Ninety Six only) as against Rs.1,25,096/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization subject to denial of interest for a period of 381 days.

¶40

iii) Respondent no.2 shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.

¶41

iv) The modified compensation amount shall be disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.

¶42

v) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶43

vi) Registry to return the records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

hkh.

Mrs. Saritha v. Mr. Rajesh Correa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Saritha v. Mr. Rajesh Correa

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

G v Sarvamangalamma Vs G Veeranna

G v Subramanya Naidu Vs Smt Mamta Desai

David Dsouza Vs the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Bwssb)

Mr Shankarappa Vs Rajappa

Mr. Yogish Vs Rajappa

Sri Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka