Allowed

V. Anand @ v. Anandan v M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2022MFA/20/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a motor accident damages award, the High Court modified the compensation by enhancing the amounts for loss of future income, nourishment, conveyance, and attendant charges based on the petitioner's disability and occupation as a mason, directing the insurer to pay the difference.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs. 73,340/- with interest at 6% p.a. directed to be deposited by the insurance company within four weeks.

V. Anand @ v Anandan Vs M/S Reliance General… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.JOSHI

¶7

M.F.A. No.20 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

V.ANAND @ V. ANANDAN S/O VELAYUDAM AGED 34 YEARS R/AT # 471-A NEAR KADIRENAHALLI PARK YARAB NAGAR, BSK 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 070 ...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI K.V. SHYAMA PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER T P CLAIMS HUB CANARA CENTENARY BUILDING 5^TH FLOOR, EAST WING, M.G. ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

¶13

V. MANJUNATH S/O VENKATAPPA AGE: MAJOR R/AT NO.GANGAMMA GUDI ROAD

¶14

¶15

M.V. EXTENSION HOSAKOTE-562 114 …RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI H.C.BETSUR, ADV FOR R1 SRI T. SRINIVASA AND SRI B.NAGENDRA SWAMY ADVOCATES FOR R2)

¶17

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.04.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.4804/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY C.M.JOSHI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

By the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal though it is posted for Admission.

¶21

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 15.04.2016 passed in MVC NO.4804/2014 by the learned XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT, Bengaluru, the petitioner/appellant has approached this Court in appeal urging various grounds.

¶22

¶23

The parties are referred to as per their ranks

¶24

before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶25

The brief facts are as below:

¶26

On 24.09.2014 at about 10.15 a.m., the petitioner was riding motorcycle bearing NO.KA-05-HX-1882 from Bangalore to Hosur on Hosur Service road on the left side and when he reached near Govindashetty Palya Gate, Konapana Agrahara, Electronic City, at that time, lorry bearing No.KA-19-2565 driven by its driver with high speed in rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules came and dashed against the petitioner's motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner fell down and wheel of the lorry ran over his right hand and also motorcycle was badly damaged. Immediately, the petitioner was taken to Apollo Clinic wherein he was admitted as an inpatient from 24.09.2014 to 27.09.2014. The petitioner sustained multiple abrasions over right arm and forearm, diffuse swelling, tenderness and over right elbow, degloving wound over right hand exposing muscle and

¶27

¶28

contusion and displaced supra condlylar fracture with inter condylar extension. He underwent surgery ORIF with plate and screws for right distal humerus and wound debridement and suturing of right thumb web deep CLW was done and discharged with an advice to take follow up treatment and bed rest. He suffered permanent disablement.

¶29

It is the further case of the petitioner that, prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy, was aged about 31 years, doing sheet centering work and was earning Rs.600/- per day. But due to accidental injuries, he could not able to attend his duty as a result loss of earning and earning capacity. It is contended that Electronic City Traffic police have registered Cr No.155/2014 against the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-19-2565 for the offences punishable u/s 279, 337 of IPC. The respondents are the insurer and owner of the said lorry and are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence the petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with cost and interest.

¶30

¶31

In pursuance to the notice issued by the Tribunal, 1st respondent has appeared through its counsel and filed objection statement denying the averments of the petition as false and the issuance of the policy in favour of 2nd respondent in respect of lorry bearing No.KA-19-2565 is denied for want confirmation and the petition is not maintainable as the owner and concerned police have not complied with their mandatory duties, that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the said lorry and that the petitioner was riding motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly stopped his vehicle in the middle of the road, without giving any signal, that the accident has occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner, that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly disproportionate and exorbitant to the facts and circumstances of the case, that the driver of the lorry was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, that the owner of the said lorry was violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

¶33

But in spite of service of notice, 2nd respondent

¶34

remained absent and hence, he is placed exparte.

¶35

On the basis of the above pleadings and contentions of both the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following Issues:

¶36

1.Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in the nature of permanent disablement on 24.09.2014 at about 10.15 a.m., Near Govindashetty Play Gate, Hosur Service Road, Konappana Agrahara , Electronic city, Bangalore, in an accident arising due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry bearing No.KA-192565?

¶37

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

¶38

3.What order or Award?

¶39

Before the Tribunal, petitioner examined himself as PW1, examined two witnesses as PWs 2 and 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P14. 1st respondent did not adduce or produce any oral or documentary evidence.

¶40

¶41

On hearing both the sides, the Tribunal answered the issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and passed an award for a sum of Rs.3,98,000/ - under different heads

¶42

as under:

¶43

Pain and sufferings	Rs. 30,000/-
Medical Expenses	Rs. 72,000/-
Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	Rs. 18,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period	Rs. 24,000/-
Loss of future income (96000 x 16 x 10%)	Rs.1,54,000/-
Disability	Rs. 50,000/-
Loss of amenities	Rs. 25,000/-
Future medical expenses	Rs. 25,000/-
Total	Rs.3,98,000/-

¶44

Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the petitioner/appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement.

¶45

Respondent Nos 1 and 2 appeared in pursuance to the notice issued by this Court.

¶46

Tribunal records have been secured.

¶47

We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. K.V. Shyamprasad, learned

¶48

¶49

counsels appearing for respondent No.1 Sri H.C. Betsur and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 Sri Srinivasa.

¶50

The fact that there was an accident involving the vehicles bearing No.KA.05.HX 1882 and KA 19-2565 on 24-9-2014 is not in dispute. Similarly, the fact that the petitioner has sustained the injuries and that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.1 is also not in dispute. The only point that is urged before this court is in respect of the quantum of the compensation assessed by the Tribunal.

¶51

The appellant/petitioner contend that the quantum assessed by the Tribunal suffers from various infirmities. The records reveal that the appellant/ petitioner had sustained comminuted fracture of right supracondylar humerus with deep CLW in right thumb over the web space and he was admitted to Apollo hospital and underwent ORIF with plate and screws for a right humerus and wound debridement. He was inpatient from 24-9-2014 to 27-9-2014. The evidence of PW3 Dr.

¶52

¶53

B. Ramesh discloses that the petitioner is suffering from permanent disability of 37% to the right upper limb and it amounts to 13% disability of the whole body. The Tribunal has considered the disability of 10% while calculating the compensation under the head of loss of future income. It is submitted that the disability which translates into functional disability should have been taken at 13% as opined by the PW3.

¶54

The petitioner contends that he was aged 31 years and he was a mason and as such, the disability attributable to the right upper limb definitely affects his functionality as a mason. In that view of the matter we are of the considered view that the functional disability of 12% would be proper in the given circumstances. As per the norms followed for the settlement of the cases, the notional income during the year 2014 would be Rs.8,500/-. Thus, the future loss of income has to be calculated as Rs.8,500/- x 12 x 12% x16=1,95,840/- by adopting multiplier of 16 for the age of the petitioner which is 31 years.

¶55

¶56

The Tribunal has assessed a sum of Rs.18,000/towards conveyance and nourishment and in our considered view, it would be proper to award a sum of Rs.28,000/- under the said head. Similarly, the petitioner being a mason, it can safely be held that he was unable to resume his work atleast for a period of three months and as such, the compensation under the head of loss of income during the laid up period has to be assessed at Rs.25,500/-.

¶57

Sofar as the compensation under the head of

¶58

pain and suffering is concerned, we hold that it would be proper to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- under this head.

¶59

The Tribunal has assessed the medical expenses at Rs.72,000/-, a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the disability, a sum of Rs.25,000/- each under the head of loss of amenities in life and future medical expenses. The question, whether the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of disability was raised by the learned counsel for Insurance Company. In our considered

¶60

¶61

opinion the petitioner being a mason, the compensation under the head of loss of amenities should have been considered by the Tribunal at Rs.75,000/- as the injury to the web space of the thumb would continue to affect his working condition. Therefore, we do not wish to interfere with the quantum awarded under these heads.

¶62

Hence, in view of the discussion made above, the

¶63

compensation is modified as below:

¶64

Thus, the petitioner is entitled to modified

¶65

compensation as under:

¶66

Pain and sufferings	Rs. 50,000/-
Medical Expenses	Rs. 72,000/-
Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	Rs. 28,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period	Rs. 25,500/-
Loss of future income	Rs.1,95,840/-
Disability	Rs. 50,000/-
Loss of amenities	Rs. 25,000/-
Future medical expenses	Rs. 25,000/-
Total	Rs.4,71,340/-
Less: Awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.3,98,000/-
Entitlement	Rs. 73,340/-

¶67

Thus, we propose to enhance total compensation by a sum of Rs.73,340/- in addition to what has been granted by the Tribunal. Hence, we pass the following:

¶68

¶69

ORDER

¶70

(i) Appeal is allowed in part

¶71

(ii) The impugned judgment and award

¶72

dated 15.04.2016 passed in MVC No.4804/2014

¶73

by the Tribunal, is modified by enhancing the compensation of Rs.73,340/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment.

¶74

(iii) Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount together with interest within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶75

(iv) All other conditions regarding

¶76

apportionment and deposit remain unaltered.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

tsn*

V. Anand @ v. Anandan v M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Anand @ v. Anandan v M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State by Vs Mithun Kumar

Mr. Sudhakar Kalbhavi Vs Mr. S. Subair Kutty

State of Karnataka Vs Srinivasa

Nithya Sri @ Nithya Sri K. G. Vs Sri. Basavaraju K N

Smt J Vanitha @ Thangam Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Sharuk Vs Shivakumar R