Partly allowed

Smt. C. R. Umarani v. Smt. S. Shaheena

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2021MFA/9366/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order, the High Court modified the quantum of compensation. The Court rejected the claim for loss of earning capacity due to lack of evidence but enhanced compensation for physical disability and other heads from Rs. 1.75 lakh to Rs. 2.5 lakh.

What did the court decide?

The compensation was enhanced to Rs. 2,50,000 with interest at 6% per annum; appeal disposed of.

Smt. C. R. Umarani Vs Smt. S. Shaheena — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

M.F.A. NO.9366 OF 2015 (MV-I)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. C. R. UMARANI, W/O. B.G. ARAVIND, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.14, III CROSS, WEST LINK ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003. ... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SMT.SUGUNA R REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. S. SHAHEENA,

¶14

W/O. A.E. NOORULLA BASHA, MAJOR IN AGE,

¶15

R/AT NO.31, INDIRANAGAR, CHICKBALLAPUR TOWN,

¶16

CHICKBALLAPUR-562 101.

¶17

THE MANAGER,

¶18

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 5-5, II FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶20

¶21

¶22

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.6692/13 ON THE FILE OF THE 20TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) is filed by the claimant, against the judgment dated 21.09.2015 in MVC.No.6692/2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).

¶26

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 1.11.2013 at about 11 a.m., when Smt. C.R. Umarani was proceeding in a car on National Highway44 road, near old Babulal Bhaba, C.K. Palli Mandal, Ananthpur District, Andhra Pradesh, at that time, a lorry driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction from wrong side and dashed against the front portion of the claimant's car. Due to the impact,

¶27

¶28

both driver of the car and the claimant sustained grievous injuries.

¶29

The claimant thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act interalia contending that she has spent a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medicines, treatment and nourishment charges. It was further pleaded that she was aged 29 years at the time of accident and was working as Senior Software Engineer and was earning a sum of Rs.9,79,338/- per annum. Due to the grievous injuries sustained by her, she is not in a position to carry out her day to day activities and lost her income. She further pleaded that the accidental injuries sustained by her was solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Lorry. Hence, she sought to award just and proper compensation.

¶30

On service of notice, respondent No.1 did not appear and remained absent and was placed exparte. The first respondent No.2 filed the written statement admitting

¶31

the issuance of policy to the lorry and liability, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and further contended that driver of the lorry was not holding a valid

¶32

¶33

driving license to drive the offending lorry as on the date of accident. The date and mode of accident, involvement of the vehicle in the accident, age, avocation and income of the claimant was also denied. It was further contended that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the car. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶34

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove her case, examined herself as PW-2 and examined one witness Dr.Mithun Jumani as P.W.3 and marked documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P28. The respondent No.2 examined driver as RW.1 and marked one document as Ex.R.1.

¶35

The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the realisation of the amount.

¶36

¶37

Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶38

Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation amount towards loss of earning capacity since the claimant had suffered disability at 13% to the whole body. He further submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in not awarding any compensation amount towards medical expenses on the ground that the Rs.1,03,315/- amount was reimbursed by TTK Insurance Company. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded under the other incidental heads are also on the lower side. Hence, he seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶39

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that in the absence of any evidence to prove that the earring capacity is reduced due to the permanent disability, the claimant is not entitled for compensation towards loss of earning capacity. He further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the

¶40

¶41

Tribunal under all the other heads are just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶42

We have considered the submissions made by

¶43

the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

¶44

The only question which arises for our

¶45

consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

¶46

Admittedly, the claimant has not produced any evidence to show that the earning capacity is reduced due to the disability suffered by her and it is also not in dispute that the claimant still continue to work as earlier. Hence, the claimant is not entitled for compensation towards loss of earning capacity.

¶47

Having regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards physical disability. The claimant is also entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.25,000/-under other conventional heads.

¶48

¶49

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- as against Rs.1,75,000/- The enhanced compensation of Rs.75,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the claims Tribunal is modified.

¶50

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

Smt. C. R. Umarani v. Smt. S. Shaheena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. C. R. Umarani v. Smt. S. Shaheena

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 Mangamma Vs Shri Narasimha Murthy

Sri. Lokesha Vs Sri. K. R. Mohan Raju

The Managing Director Vs Nanjaiah

Mallikarjunaiah B K Vs M. Natesh

Smt Lakshmamma W/O Late P Krishnappa Vs Smt Vijayalakshmi

Padmayya N Naik Vs Muktar Ahammed