Partly allowed

Shriram Genearal Insurance Com. Ltd., v. Mahadeva S/O Late Thikkayya @ Neniki Thikkayya

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2022MFA/100747/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two miscellaneous first appeals filed by the insurance company and the deceased's dependents, the High Court modified a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court upheld most compensation heads but reduced attendant charges and disallowed separate payment for permanent physical impairment, resulting in a total of Rs. 6.26 lakhs.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal award modified; compensation reduced to Rs. 6,26,400; Rs. 1.5 lakh for permanent physical impairment set aside; attendant charges reduced by half.

Shriram Genearal Insurance Com. Ltd., Vs Mahadeva… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 100747 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100968 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100747/2018 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100968/2018

¶8

IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100747/2018:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COM. LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, E-8, EPIP, RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN. REPTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MAHADEVA,

¶15

S/O LATE THIKKAYYA @ NENIKI THIKKAYYA, AGE: 28 YEARS, Digitally signed OCC: AGRICULTURIST CUM COOLIE, by J MAMATHA J Location: R/O: DEVI NAGAR CAMP, MAMATHA Dharwad Date: 2022.08.25 SIRUGUPPA TALUKA. 10:24:03 +0530 PRESENTLY R/AT: C/O. THIMMAPPA, SRI NAGAR, NEAR GANESH GUDI, BATRI, BALLARI-583101.

¶16

MANJUNATHA, S/O BASAPPA, AGE 32 YEARS,

¶17

¶18

MFA No. 100747 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100968 of 2018

¶19

OCC: DRIVER CUM OWNER, R/O: NO.115, KHACHAPURA VILLAGE, LINGASUGUR TALUKA, DIST: RAICHUR-584101.

¶20

BOODEPPA, S/O BASALINGAPPA, AGE:48 YEARS, R/O. LINGASUGUR, TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR-584101.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI MANJUNATH JADAI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, R-2 REFUSED, R-3 SERVED)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1074/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.III, BALLARI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.7,76,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.

¶24

IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100968/2018:

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SRI MAHADEVA, S/O LATE THIKKAYYA @ NENIKI THIKKAYYA, AGE:27 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURIST CUM COOLIE, R/O.5/445, BC COLONY, UNDABANDA SIDAYYANA KOTE VILLAGE, DEVINAGAR CAMP, SIRUGUPPA TALUK, PRESENTLY AT C/O. THIMMAPPA, SRINAGAR, NEAR GANESH GUDI, BATRI, BALLARI-583101.

¶27

...APPELLANT

¶28

(BY SRI MANJUNATH JADAI, ADVOCATE)

¶29

¶30

MFA No. 100747 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100968 of 2018

¶31

AND:

¶32

SRI MANJUNATHA, S/O BASAPPA, AGE:31 YEARS, DRIVER CUM OWNER OF TEMPO TRAX BEARING NO.KA-36/5386, R/O:NO.115, KHACHAPURA VILLAGE, LINGASUGUR TALUK, RAICHUR-584122.

¶33

SRI BOODEPPA, S/O BASALINGAPPA, AGE:47 YEARS, INSURANCE POLICY HOLDER OF TEMPO TRAX BEARING NO.KA-36/5386, R/O.LINGASUGUR TALUK, RAICHUR-584122.

¶34

M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN 302022.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI NAGARAJ C. KOLLORI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3, R-2 SERVED )

¶37

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1074/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.III, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶38

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

¶40

MFA No. 100747 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100968 of 2018

¶41

J U D G M E N T

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals and these two appeals are filed by the Insurance Company as well as the claimant questioning the quantum of compensation for the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant i.e., fracture of tibia and fibula as well as fracture of left orbital wall and also the fracture of lateral malleulous right ankle and he was an inpatient in the hospital for a period of 20 days and he was subjected to surgery. In support of the claim of the claimant, he examined the doctor as P.W.2, who assessed the disability of 30% and the Tribunal has taken the disability of 20%. Hence, I do not find any error in considering the disability assessed by the Tribunal.

¶43

On perusal of the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.50,000/under the head pain and suffering and the same is just and reasonable and does not require any interference.

¶44

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- under the head loss of income during the laid up

¶45

¶46

MFA No. 100747 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100968 of 2018

¶47

period and taking note of the fractures sustained by the claimant, it requires time for uniting of fractures and hence awarding of Rs.40,000/- does not require any interference.

¶48

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- under the head attendant charges, conveyance and other incidental expenses. The injured/claimant was in the hospital for a period of 20 days and this is an accident of the year 2015 and hence the amount awarded is little bit on the higher side and the same is reduced to Rs.20,000/- as against Rs.40,000/-.

¶49

An amount of Rs.1,20,000/- is awarded by the

¶50

Tribunal under the head medical expenses based on the documentary evidence and hence it does not require any interference.

¶51

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- under the head future medical expenses since he was subjected to surgery and implant in situ and hence it does not require any interference.

¶52

¶53

MFA No. 100747 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100968 of 2018

¶54

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.3,06,000/- under the head loss of future income by taking the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.7,500/-. If the notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month is taken, it comes to Rs.3,26,400/-.

¶55

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head loss of amenities and comforts. Having taken note of the age of the claimant as 27 years and he has suffered disability of 20% and he has to lead rest of his life with the said disability, the same is not on the higher side as contended by the Insurance Company.

¶56

In view of the enhancement of compensation under the head loss of future income, the difference is only Rs.20,400/- and having taken note of the same, it does not require interference and only it requires interference for awarding compensation under the head permanent physical impairment. Once the Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the head future loss of income considering the disability, the question of again awarding compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-

¶57

¶58

MFA No. 100747 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100968 of 2018

¶59

under the head permanent physical impairment does not arise. Hence, this Court has to set aside the award amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified reducing the compensation amount from Rs.7,76,000/- to Rs.6,26,400/-.

¶60

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶61

following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

(i) Both the appeals are allowed in part.

¶64

(ii) The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified granting compensation of Rs.6,26,400/-.

¶65

(iii) The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶66

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

¶67

(Sd/-) JUDGE

¶68

Shriram Genearal Insurance Com. Ltd., v. Mahadeva S/O Late Thikkayya @ Neniki Thikkayya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram Genearal Insurance Com. Ltd., v. Mahadeva S/O Late Thikkayya @ Neniki Thikkayya

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

Mr Vikas Vs State by Chennamanakere Achukattu Police Station

Mr Joswin Lobo Vs State of Karnataka

Mahesh Vs the State of Karnataka by

New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Satyavati W/O Raju

New India Assurnace Co.,Ltd., Vs Smt. T Vedukondal W/O Borrayya

Smt Yamanavva @ Parvati Vs Sri Tippanna S/O Mallappa Hosakoti