Partly allowed

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, v. Ningappa Lachappa Lamani

Karnataka HC4 Aug 2022MFA/101812/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two appeals filed against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a motor vehicle accident. The High Court modified the award by reducing compensation for future loss of income, happiness, and amenities due to the Court finding errors in the assessment of disability and calculation of specific heads.

What did the court decide?

The tribunal judgment and award is modified granting compensation of Rs. 2,05,880/- with interest, reduced from Rs. 4,40,000/-.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Vs Ningappa… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 103469 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101812 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103469 OF 2016

¶6

(MV-I) C/W

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101812 OF 2016

¶8

MFA NO.103469/2016

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHRI. NINGAPPA S/O LACHAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE IN STONE QUARRY, NOW NIL, R/O: SULAGA QUARRY, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶11

(BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SAGAR S/O VITTAL PATIL, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: AT/PO: MUDHAL, TQ: BHUDARGAD, DIST: KOLHAPUR, STATE: MAHARASHTRA-416208.

¶14

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI.

¶15

…APPELLANT

¶16

¶17

MFA No. 103469 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101812 of 2016

¶18

SHRI. SHIVAJI S/O. DEVADAS PATIL, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO-433, SIMIDEV NAGAR, HINDALAGA, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 & R3 SERVED)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.03.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1128/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VI-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

MFA NO.101812 OF 2016

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED THROUGH NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS HUB, II FLOOR, SRINATH COMPLEX, COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY.

¶25

…..APPELLANT

¶26

(SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT)

¶27

AND:

¶28

SRI. NINGAPPA LACHAPPA LAMANI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,

¶29

¶30

MFA No. 103469 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101812 of 2016

¶31

R/O. SULAGA QUARRY, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶32

SAGAR VITTAL PATIL, AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. AT/PO. MUDHAL,

¶33

TQ. BHUDARGAD, DIST. KOLHAPUR, STATE MAHARASHTRA – 416208.

¶34

SRI. SHIVAJI DEVADAS PATIL, AGE MAJOR, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. H.NO.433, SIMIDEV NAGAR, HINDALAGA, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶35

….RESPONDENTS

¶36

(SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 & R3 ARE SERVED)

¶37

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.03.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1128/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.4,40,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A. FROM 30.05.2015, TILL REALISATION, WHICH SHALL BE DESPOSITED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER.

¶38

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

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

These two appeals are filed by the claimant as well

¶41

as the Insurance company questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal in MVC No.1128/2015 dated 08.03.2016 on the file of the VI

¶42

¶43

MFA No. 103469 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101812 of 2016

¶44

Additional District & Sessions Judge Court and Addl. MACT, Belagavi, at Belagavi.

¶45

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the tribunal is that, he met with an accident on 08.03.2015, as a result he sustained injuries and he has suffered the disability.

¶46

The tribunal after considering both the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition granting compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- with 9% interest. Hence, both, the claimant as well the Insurance company filed the present appeals.

¶47

The main contention of the claimant before this Court is that, the income taken by the trial Court is Rs.7,000/- and awarded lesser compensation under the head of loss of future income and compensation awarded under the other heads are also very meager and hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶48

¶49

MFA No. 103469 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101812 of 2016

¶50

The Insurance company in its appeal has

¶51

contended that, the tribunal has committed an error in taking the disability at 20%, even though the Doctor has assessed partial permanent disability at 20% for left lower limb and ought to have taken 5% or 6% disability, instead of 20% is also accepted and calculated.

¶52

The tribunal has also committed an error in

¶53

taking the income of Rs.7,000/- and also compensation awarded under the other heads are also very exorbitant and it requires interference.

¶54

Having heard the respective counsel and also

¶55

on perusal of the material on record, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court are;

¶56

(i) Whether the tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation?

¶57

(ii) Whether the tribunal has committed an error in awarding exorbitant compensation?

¶58

¶59

MFA No. 103469 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101812 of 2016

¶60

(iii) What order?

¶61

8. Answer to Point Nos.1 and 2: Having heard

¶62

the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material on record, the claimant had sustained injury i.e. abrasion on occipital region, C-5 and C-6 diffuse central and left para central disc bulge with compression over C-6 nerve root. The claimant also examined the Doctor as P.W.2 who assessed the disability of 20% in relation to the left upper limb and tribunal accepted 20% disability and calculated loss of future income and failed to take note of the disability assessed by the Doctor is mentioned to a particular limb and if it is for a particular limb, ought to have taken 1/3^rd and instead of taking 1/3^rd accepted the whole disability of 20% and hence, tribunal has committed an error in considering the disability of 20% and ought to have taken 7% which is 1/3^rd in respect of the whole body and hence, it requires interference of this Court with regard to the aspect of awarding compensation under the

¶63

¶64

MFA No. 103469 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101812 of 2016

¶65

head of future loss of income. However, the tribunal has taken the income of Rs.7,000/- instead of taking notional income of Rs.8,000/- and if it is taken Rs.8,000/- X 12 X 7% X 14, it comes to Rs.94,080/- under the head of future loss of income. Having taken note of the nature of injuries, pain and suffering also the tribunal awarded the compensation on higher side i.e. Rs.50,000/- and only a fracture of left sinus and also the C-5 and C-6 defuse central and left para central disc bulge with compression over C-6 nerve root and hence, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.40,000/- as against Rs.50,000/-. The tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of future happiness and amenities and also the tribunal lost sight of the nature of the injuries and awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the same is on the higher side and the same is reduced to Rs.25,000/-.

¶66

With regard to the loss of income during the treatment period, he was treated conservatively from

¶67

¶68

MFA No. 103469 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101812 of 2016

¶69

09.03.2015 to 16.03.2015 for a period of seven days. The loss of income during the treatment period, the tribunal ought to have taken for a period of three months and hence, it requires to be enhanced to Rs.24,000/- as against Rs.21,000/-. Including the conveyance and other incidental expenses, the tribunal has awarded Rs.21,000/and the same is reduced to Rs.10,000/-. Medical expenses of Rs.12,800/- awarded is based on the medical bills and it does not require any interference. The claimant is also entitle for compensation under the head of loss of amenities of Rs.25,000/-. In all the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,05,880/-. Hence, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 as affirmative in part.

¶70

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

¶71

ORDER

¶72

Both the appeals are allowed.

¶73

¶74

MFA No. 103469 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 101812 of 2016

¶75

The Judgment and award of the tribunal is modified granting compensation of Rs.2,05,880/-, as against Rs.4,40,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

¶76

The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the tribunal, forthwith.

¶77

The compensation is payable within six weeks from the date of this order.

¶78

The Registry is directed to transmit the records forthwith to the tribunal.

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80

SVH

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, v. Ningappa Lachappa Lamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, v. Ningappa Lachappa Lamani

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

Subramani Vs the State of Karnataka

Sandeep a Vs the State

Channavva Vs the Managing Director

Shri.Rudragouda S/O Goudappa Marigoudar Vs the Managing Director

The Branch Manager Vs Shri. Rudragouda Goudappa Marigoudar

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Gangappa S/O. Chinnappa Saunshi