Partly allowed

Mahesh Rangappa Galabi v. Tippanna Laxmappa Badanur

Karnataka HC17 Aug 2022MFA/22380/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal against a motor accident compensation award. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing compensation by directing the insurer to pay an additional Rs. 8,61,000/- including medical expenses, pain and sufferings, and loss of amenities.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of appeal in part; enhancement of compensation to Rs. 8,61,000/-; direction to deposit difference within six weeks.

Mahesh Rangappa Galabi Vs Tippanna Laxmappa Badanur — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 22380 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22380 OF 2013 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MAHESH RANGAPPA GALABI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, NOW NIL, R/O : KADARKOPPA, TAL : BADAMI.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.SANTOSH S HATTIKATAGI.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

TIPPANNA LAXMAPPA BADANUR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: KAJJIDONI, TAL : BAGALKOT (OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO. KA29R895)

¶13

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO, LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM (POLICY NO.240104/31/08/01/00003867 VALID FROM 20/11/2008 TO 19/11/2009)

¶14

…RESPONDENT'S

¶15

(BY R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH

¶16

SRI.S.S.KOLIWARD.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

¶18

MFA No. 22380 of 2013

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:16-04-2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.599/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT-VIII, BADAMI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY. THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and the respondent No.2-insurance company.

¶23

Factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that, claimant met with accident on 8/3/2009 due to the accident, he has suffered fracture of shoulder bone, injuries to eye, right hand and head.

¶24

In support of his claim, claimant was examined as PW-1 and doctor was examined as PW-2 and produced 32 documents and same were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.32. On the other hand, the respondent-insurance company neither examine any witness nor produced any document. The Tribunal after consideration of both oral and documentary

¶25

¶26

MFA No. 22380 of 2013

¶27

evidence on record awarded compensation of Rs.4,78,000/with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the present appeal is filed by the injured claimant.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in taking 50% disability and income at Rs.3,000/- per month, as the claimant was working as a coolie and he suffered fracture of shoulder, head injury and lost strength of his right hand. The Tribunal has awarded meager compensation on the head of loss of earning capacity and also on other heads. He further submits that Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of amenities and hence, needs interference by this Court.

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent-insurance company submits that the Tribunal has taken higher percentage of disability and hence, compensation awarded is just and proper. He further submits that no document is produced to show that the claimant is

¶30

¶31

MFA No. 22380 of 2013

¶32

earning Rs.5,000/- per month and hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶33

In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the following points would arise for consideration:

¶34

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

¶35

ii) What order?

¶36

Point Nos.1 and 2 : Having heard the respective

¶37

counsel and also perusal of the material on record, the Tribunal while considering issue No.3 with regard to nature of injuries, taken note of the fact that claimant has suffered fracture of right shoulder bone, injuries to his right eye, right hand and head. He has also suffered injury to his right rib and right hand nerves were cut and he has sustained right traumatic branchial plexus injury and injury to all over his body and immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Lokapur PHC hospital, wherein he took first aid treatment and thereafter, he was shifted to Kerudi hospital at Bagalkot. On the same day, he was shifted to Shushruta hospital at

¶38

¶39

MFA No. 22380 of 2013

¶40

Hubballi, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient from 9/3/2009 to 4/4/2009. X-ray was taken and he was admitted to NIMHANS hospital, Bangalore as an inpatient from 7/8/2009 to 21/8/2009 and from 14/9/2011 to 19/9/2011 he was admitted as an inpatient in Sparsha hospital and x-ray was taken and operation was conducted to his shoulder and spent Rs.2,50,000/- toward medical expenses. The claimant has produced medical bills amounting to Rs.1,71,000/-, however, the Tribunal has erred in awarding only compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- under the head of medical expenses, disbelieving the computerized bills in coming to the conclusion that the same are not containing the signatures and the same needs to be enhanced to Rs.1,71,000/-.

¶41

Having taken note of the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant and period of hospitalization, the claimant is entitled for compensation under the head of pain and sufferings Rs.75,000/-. The accident is of the year 2009 and the claimant was working as a coolie and hence, it is just and appropriate to consider the income of the claimant at

¶42

¶43

MFA No. 22380 of 2013

¶44

Rs.5,000/- per month. However, taking into account that the claimant was hospitalized for a period of 54 days in the hospitals referred above and considering the disability of 50% and applying multiplier of 16, loss of future income would be (5,000/-x12x16x50%)=4,80,000/-. Claimant was taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 54 days in the above referred hospitals and hence, it is just and appropriate to award compensation of Rs.45,000/- under the head of loss of earning due to laid-up period and Rs.40,000/- under the head of attendant charges. The Tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities and the same is awarded at Rs.50,000/- and hence, the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.8,61,000/-.

¶45

In view of the discussion made above, I pass the

¶46

following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

Appeal is allowed in part.

¶49

¶50

MFA No. 22380 of 2013

¶51

In modification of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.8,61,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization as against Rs.4,78,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶52

Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶53

Insurance Company is directed to deposit the difference compensation amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

Mahesh Rangappa Galabi v. Tippanna Laxmappa Badanur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Rangappa Galabi v. Tippanna Laxmappa Badanur

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

Mr Jahid @ Sohali Vs the State

P Yeshwanth Vs the State by Kempapura Agrahara Police Station

Netra D/O Nagappa Hakari Vs the Divisional Controller

The Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs K Saiman S/O. Kondayya

Smt Laxmibai W/O Dattatraya Suvarna Vs Sri Allappa

The Branch Manager Vs Laxmi W/O Late Kumarswamy