Partly allowed

Smt Renukamma v. Sri Hanumanthaiah

Karnataka HC20 Oct 2022MFA/138/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation awarded to two victims in motor vehicle accidents who sustained permanent disability. The Court modified the Tribunal's awards by increasing amounts for pain and sufferings, incidental expenses, and loss of future earning capacity based on notional income and disability percentages.

What did the court decide?

Modified judgments granting Rs. 3,44,700/- and Rs. 3,39,900/- to two appellants respectively, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petitions.

Smt Renukamma Vs Sri Hanumanthaiah — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

M.F.A.NO.139/2015 (MV-I)

¶7

C/W. M.F.A.NO.138/2015 (MV-I)

¶8

IN M.F.A.NO.139/2015:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI M.C.RANGANATHA S/O LATE CHIKKARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT HOSA VIJJANABELLA VILLAGE KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU-572 137.

¶11

… APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI NARENDRA D. GOWDA., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . SRI HANUMANTHAIAH S/O HANUMANTHABHOVI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT. JODI DEVARAHALLI VILLAGE KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU-572 137.

¶15

2 . UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1^ST FLOOR, JAYADEVA COMPLEX P.B.NO.54, B.H.ROAD TUMAKURU-572 101. ... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI K.N.SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

¶18

THIS M.F.A., IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 20.6.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1043/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, SIRA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

IN M.F.A.NO.138/2015:

¶20

BETWEEN:

¶21

SMT. RENUKAMMA W/O RANGANATHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT. HOSA VIJJANABELLA VILLAGE KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU-572 101.

¶22

… APPELLANT

¶23

(BY SRI NARENDRA D. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

1 . SRI HANUMANTHAIAH S/O HANUMANTHABHOVI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT JODI DEVARAHALLI VILLAGE KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU-572 101.

¶26

2 . UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1^ST FLOOR, JAYADEVA COMPLEX P.B.NO.54, B.H.ROAD TUMAKURU-572 101. ... RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI K.N.SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶28

THIS M.F.A., IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.6.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1042/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT., SIRA, PARTLY ALLOWING

¶29

¶30

THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶31

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

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Though these matters are listed for admission today, with

¶34

the consent of both the learned counsel it is taken up for final disposal.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties in both appeals.

¶36

These two appeals are filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 20.06.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.1043/2011 (MFA No.139/2015) and M.V.C.No.1042/2011 (MFA No.138/2015), respectively, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & Additional MACT., at Sira (‘the Tribunal’ for short), questioning the quantum of compensation.

¶37

The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

¶38

¶39

In MFA No.139/2015:

¶40

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant in M.V.C.No.1043/2011 before the Tribunal is that he has suffered compound fracture of both bones of left leg, as a result he has suffered permanent disability.

¶41

In order to substantiate his contention, the claimant is examined himself as P.W.3 and examined the Doctor as P.W.4 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P19. P.W.4, the Doctor has assessed 15% disability to the whole body. On the other hand, the respondents have examined the witness as R.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R4.

¶42

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the disability of 15% and the income taken was only Rs.4,000/and ought to have taken the notional income. The learned counsel would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on other heads are very meager. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶43

¶44

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that the Tribunal having considered the material on record, awarded the just and reasonable compensation.

¶45

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, reiterates the arguments canvassed by respondent No.1.

¶46

Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal of the evidence of P.W.3, who is the claimant and the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.4 and also the Wound Certificate, Discharge Card, case sheet, OPD Slip, 4 Old X-rays and one new X-ray, the petitioner has sustained grievous injury to his left leg i.e., compound fracture of both bones of left leg. The Doctor has assessed the disability at 15% and he was an inpatient from 16.04.2011 to 08.05.2011 at Government Hospital, Tumakuru i.e., almost 24 days.

¶47

Having considered the nature of injuries i.e., compound fracture of both bones of left leg and it is an accident of the year 2011, it is appropriate to enhance the compensation to Rs.50,000/- as against Rs.40,000/- on the head of pain and sufferings.

¶48

¶49

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of

¶50

Rs.20,000/- on the head of medical expenses. It does not require any interference.

¶51

The Tribunal failed to award any compensation on the head of incidental expenses, food, nourishment and other attendant charges. He was an inpatient for a period of 24 days from 16.05.2011 to 08.05.2011. Hence, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.25,000/- on the head of incidental expenses, food, nourishment and other attendant charges.

¶52

The Tribunal considered the loss of income during the treatment period was Rs.20,000/- by taking the income of Rs.4,000/- per month. It was an accident of the year 2011. In the year 2011, the notional income would be Rs.6,500/- in the absence of documentary evidence. Having considered the fact that he has suffered compound fracture of both bones of left leg, the Tribunal has rightly taken the loss of income for a period of five months. The total compensation for a period of five months by taking the income of Rs.6,500/-, it comes to Rs.32,500/- on the head of loss of income during the treatment period.

¶53

¶54

The Tribunal by taking the disability of 15% assessed the compensation on the head of loss of future earning capacity by taking Rs.4,000/- as his income. Hence, the same has to be revisited by taking Rs.6,500/- as his income with disability of 15% and the relevant multiplier 16, it comes to Rs.1,87,200/- (6500x12x16x15/100) towards ‘loss of future earning capacity’.

¶55

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- on the head of loss of amenities. When he is aged about 34 years and he is suffering from 15% disability, it is appropriate to award compensation of Rs.30,000/- on the head of loss of amenities.

¶56

In all, the claimant/appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,44,700/- as against Rs.2,10,200/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶57

In MFA No.138/2015:

¶58

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant in M.V.C.No.1042/2011 before the Tribunal is that she has suffered compound fracture of both bones of right leg, as a result she has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 16%.

¶59

¶60

In order to substantiate her contention, the claimant is examined herself as P.W.2 and examined the Doctor as P.W.4 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P19. P.W.4, the Doctor has assessed 16% disability to the whole body. On the other hand, the respondents have examined the witness as R.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R4.

¶61

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the disability of 16% and the income taken was only Rs.4,000/and ought to have taken the notional income. The learned counsel would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on other heads are very meager. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶62

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that the Tribunal having considered the material on record, awarded the just and reasonable compensation.

¶63

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, reiterates the arguments canvassed by respondent No.1.

¶64

¶65

Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal of the evidence of P.W.2, who is the claimant and the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.4 and also the Wound Certificate, Discharge Card, case sheet, OPD Slip, 4 Old X-rays and one new X-ray, the petitioner has sustained grievous injury to her right leg i.e., compound fracture of both bones of right leg. The Doctor has assessed the disability at 16% and she was an inpatient from 16.04.2011 to 28.04.2011 at Government Hospital, Tumakuru i.e., almost 13 days.

¶66

Having considered the nature of injuries i.e., compound fracture of both bones of right leg and it is an accident of the year 2011, it is appropriate to enhance the compensation to Rs.50,000/- as against Rs.40,000/- on the head of pain and sufferings.

¶67

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of

¶68

Rs.15,000/- on the head of medical expenses. It does not require any interference.

¶69

The Tribunal failed to award any compensation on the head of incidental expenses, food, nourishment and other

¶70

¶71

attendant charges. She was an inpatient for a period of 13 days from 16.05.2011 to 28.04.2011. Hence, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.13,000/- on the head of incidental expenses, food, nourishment and other attendant charges.

¶72

The Tribunal considered the loss of income during the treatment period was Rs.20,000/- by taking the income of Rs.4,000/- per month. It was an accident of the year 2011. In the year 2011, the notional income would be Rs.6,500/- in the absence of documentary evidence. Having considered the fact that she has suffered compound fracture of both bones of right leg, the Tribunal has rightly taken the loss of income for a period of five months. The total compensation for a period of five months by taking the income of Rs.6,500/-, it comes to Rs.32,500/- on the head of loss of income during the treatment period.

¶73

Though the Doctor has assessed the disability at 16%, the Tribunal has taken 15%, the same is not an error. But the Tribunal has assessed the compensation on the head of loss of future earning capacity by taking Rs.4,000/- as his income, it is an error. Hence, the same has to be revisited by taking

¶74

¶75

Rs.6,500/- as her income with disability of 15% and the relevant multiplier 16, it comes to Rs.1,98,900/- (6500x12x17x15/100) towards ‘loss of future earning capacity’.

¶76

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- on the head of loss of amenities. When she was aged about 34 years and she is suffering from 16% disability, it is appropriate to award compensation of Rs.30,000/- on the head of loss of amenities.

¶77

In all, the claimant/appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,39,900/- as against Rs.2,12,400/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶78

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶79

following:

¶80

ORDER

¶81

(i) The appeal filed by the claimant in MFA No.139/2015, is allowed-in-part.

¶82

(ii) The judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 20.06.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.1043/2011 is modified granting compensation of Rs.3,44,700/- as against Rs.2,10,200/-

¶83

¶84

awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation.

¶85

(iii) The appeal filed by the claimant in MFA No.138/2015 is allowed-in-part.

¶86

(iv) The judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 20.06.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.1042/2011 is modified granting compensation of Rs.3,39,400/- as against Rs.2,12,400/awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation.

¶87

(v) The respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount within six weeks from today in both the appeals.

¶88

Sd/JUDGE

¶89

cp*

Smt Renukamma v. Sri Hanumanthaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Renukamma v. Sri Hanumanthaiah

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

N. Thippeswamy Vs C. Rajappa

The Manager the National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gurumurthappa @ Murthy

Sri C Rajappa Vs Sri N Thippeswamy

Divisional Manager Vs Smt Siddamma

S Chetan Vs Santhosh Kumar

Basavarajappa Vs Prakash