Partly allowed

Sri Hanumappa v. Sri Mansoor Ali

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2022MFA/2133/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal by a motor accident claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing the total damages from Rs.1,69,000 to Rs.2,39,120 by calculating future loss of earnings, restricting interest to 6%, and adding Rs.20,000 for loss of amenities.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.1,69,000 to Rs.2,39,120; interest reduced to 6% p.a.

Sri Hanumappa Vs Sri Mansoor Ali — Karnataka HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶6

M.F.A.NO.2133/2016 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI HANUMAPPA, S/O SRI IRAPPA NASAGUNNA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT THUMRIKOPPA, BUDADOOR POST, KUSTAGI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT, NOW R/AT AJI GATE, BELAPU VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT – 576 101

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI CHETAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAJARAM S, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI MANSOOR ALI, S/O P. MOHAMMAD, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT MADHURA STORES, BELAPU, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 101

¶13

DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., NEAR SHANKAR VITTAL GARAGE, UDUPI, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 101

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

¶16

(BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20^TH NOVEMBER, 2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.239/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT AT UDUPI; ALLOW MVC NO.239/2014 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE MVC CASE UPTO Rs.8,00,000/- AND GRAND SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶18

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

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

This is claimant’s appeal for enhancement.

¶21

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are

¶22

referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.

¶23

Claimant has filed this appeal seeking

¶24

enhancement contending that the compensation granted is highly insufficient, inadequate and disproportionate and as

¶25

¶26

such claimant is entitled for enhancement. The

¶27

compensation granted under various heads is on the lower side.

¶28

It is the case of the claimant that on 25.08.2013 at 12 hours, he along with claimant in MVC.No.240/2014 was travelling in motor cycle bearing registration No.KA 37 L 7668 from Kaup side towards Belapu side. When they were near one Anwar’s house, Kombagadde, the driver of an unregistered car bearing Chassis No.3EVB11S.O1461588 Engine No.F8VIN4635338 driven by its driver in a rash or negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle as a result of which, both of them sustained injuries resulting in claimant sustaining permanent partial disability.

¶29

Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 has

¶30

remained Ex-parte.

¶31

Respondent No.2 has appeared and filed written statement denying the mode of accident, age, income,

¶32

¶33

avocation of the claimant, nature of the injury sustained, medical expenses incurred. Though admitted the coverage of the vehicle, respondent No.2 has contended that its liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. However, the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and has sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶34

During enquiry claimant has examined himself as

¶35

PW-1, one witness as PW-2 and the Doctor as PW-3 and relied upon Ex.P1 to 19.

¶36

8. Respondent No.2 has not led oral evidence, but got marked the insurance policy as Ex.R1.

¶37

Vide impugned judgment and award, the

¶38

Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and granted compensation in a sum of Rs.1,69,000/- as detailed below:

¶39

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Pain and sufferings	45,000-00
Medical expenses	46,000-00

¶40

¶41

Nourishment, Conveyance & Attendant expenses (6000+2000+2000)	10,000-00
Loss of income	18,000-00
Future medical expenses	15,000-00
For disability	25,000-00
Loss of amenities	10,000-00
TOTAL	1,69,000-00

¶42

The respondent No.2 Insurance company has not challenged the impugned judgment and award.

¶43

Loss of future earnings: The accident has taken

¶44

place on 25.08.2013. At the time of accident, claimant was aged 23 years. Though he claims that he was doing coolie work and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. no evidence is placed on record to prove the same. The Tribunal has taken his notional income as Rs.6,000/- p.m. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which is based on minimum wages, during the year 2013 the notional income has to be taken at Rs.8,000/-. As per the medical evidence, the claimant has sustained disability of 12.4% of concerned limb. However, the Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.25,000/- as global

¶45

¶46

compensation towards disability. For arriving at future loss of income, the loss of income per annum is to be multiplied by the appropriate multiplier based on the age of the claimant and to be multiplied by the percentage of disability. Since the claimant was aged 23 years, the appropriate multiplier is 18. Since, disability is calculated at 12.4% of the concerned limb, 1/3^rd of it comes to 4.1%. The loss of future earning due to permanent partial disability is 8,000 x 12 x 18 x 4% = 69,120/- Thus under the head loss of future earnings, the claimant is entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.69,120/- instead of 25,000/-.

¶47

Compensation for laid up period: The Tribunal

¶48

has granted compensation for laid up period in a sum of Rs.18,000/- at the rate of Rs.6,000/-p.m for a period of 3 months. Since the income is taken 8,000/- for a period of 3 months, the compensation works out to Rs.24,000/- instead of Rs.18,000/-.

¶49

¶50

Medical expenses: Based on medical bills, the

¶51

Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.46,000/- under the head medical expenses and therefore it requires no interference.

¶52

Pain and suffering: Having regard to the nature of the injury sustained, treatment taken the Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.45,000/- under the head pain and suffering. It is reasonable and adequate and as such requires no interference.

¶53

Loss of amenities: The Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head loss of amenities. Having regard to the nature of injury sustained, it is on the lower side and therefore I hold that claimant is entitled for Rs.30,000 under the said head instead of Rs.10,000/- as granted by the Tribunal.

¶54

Future medical expenses: The Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head future medical expenses. Having regard to the nature

¶55

¶56

of the injury sustained by the claimant, it is adequate and sufficient and requires no interference.

¶57

Food, Conveyance & Attendant charges: Having

¶58

regard to the injury sustained, period of treatment, compensation granted in a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head nourishment, conveyance and attendance charges is

¶59

sufficient and requires no interference.

¶60

Heads	Amount granted by the Tribunal In Rs.	Amount granted by this Court In Rs.
Pain and sufferings	45,000-00	45,000-00
Medical expenses	46,000-00	46,000-00
Nourishment, Conveyance & Attendant expenses (6000+2000+2000)	10,000-00	10,000-00
Loss of income	18,000-00	24,000-00 (Loss of earning during laid up period)
Future medical expenses	15,000-00	15,000-00
For disability	25,000-00	69,120-00
Loss of amenities	10,000-00	30,000-00
TOTAL	1,69,000-00	2,39,120-00

¶61

Thus, in all claimant is entitled for compensation

¶62

in a sum of Rs.2,39,120 as against Rs.1,69,000/- granted

¶63

by the Tribunal.

¶64

¶65

The Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of 8% p.a without any basis and therefore it is restricted to 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶66

(i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) Appellant/claimant is entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.2,69,120/as against Rs.1,69,000/- granted by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization (minus the amount already paid/deposited).

¶67

(iii) The respondent No.2 Insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

Sri Hanumappa v. Sri Mansoor Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Hanumappa v. Sri Mansoor Ali

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

The Branch Managaer Vs Kusuma W/O Bhagwan Salunke

The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Satappa S/O Dareppa Patil @ Biradar and Anr.

Kusuma W/O Bhagwan Salunke Vs the Branch Manager

Sri. Manohar Poojary Vs Sri. Karunakara

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Susheela Devadiga

Smt Susheelamma Vs Sri a v Krishna Kumar Reddy