Partly allowed

Nithyananda Shetty K v. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2022MFA/267/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an MFA under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Karnataka High Court partially allowed the appeal, enhancing the compensation from Rs.3.51 lakhs to Rs.4.41 lakhs for pain, loss of amenities, and adding future medical expenses, while reducing interest to 6% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.90,000; pain and suffering enhanced to Rs.60,000; loss of amenities enhanced to Rs.80,000; future medical expenses awarded Rs.40,000; interest rate reduced to 6% p.a.

Nithyananda Shetty K Vs Reliance General Insurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.267/2017 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NITHYANANDA SHETTY K S/O M.GOPALA SHETTY AGED 42 YEARS R/AT: NO.48, 4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN R.T. NAGAR POST OFFICE CPV BLOCK, BANGALORE NORTH R.T. NAGAR BANGALORE-32

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE )

¶11

AND:

¶12

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COM. LTD., RGICL 28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD BANGALORE- 1 POLICY ISSUED BY ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD HAMPNAKATTE, IN POLICY NO.1404542340000340 DATE OF VALIDITY FROM 23.4.2014 TO 22.4.2015

¶13

M/S THE PARTNER BHARATHI TOURIST NEAR SRI. MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE BANNANJE POST, UDUPI- 576101

¶14

¶15

RAGHUVER DONGERKERY S/O SRINIVASA DONGERKERY M/S PRAGATHI TOURIST CORPORATION NEAR GOVT JUNIOR COLLEGE SERVICE BUS STAND UDUPI- 576101 OWNER OF BUS BEARING NO.KA.20.C-8539

¶16

THE MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REGIONAL OFFICE NO.44/45, 4TH FLOOR LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS BANGALORE- 01

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 TO R4- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD. 21.11.2017)

¶19

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:19.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.904/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BANGALORE (SCCH-1) PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the appellant-claimant challenging

¶23

¶24

the judgment and award dated 19.10.2016, passed in MVC No.904/2015, on the file of the Member Principal MACT at Bengaluru (SCCH-1), seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶25

Brief facts:

¶26

It is stated that on 24.11.2014 at about 5.15 a.m., the petitioner was travelling in Pragathi Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-C-8539 from Brahmavar to Bangalore, and when the said Bus came near AIMS Hospital at Bellur Cross, at that moment driver of the Bharathi Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-C-193 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the vehicle and dashed against Pragathi Bus from behind. Due to the said impact, the petitioner and other passengers fell down and sustained injuries.

¶27

It is further stated that in the said accident, the petitioner sustained injuries and was shifted to Bangalore Baptist Hospital, Bengaluru, where he took treatment as inpatient. He has sustained grievous injuries like C7 right facet fracture with C6-C7 anterior translation with

¶28

¶29

progressive Neurodeflicits. He was bedridden and has spent nearly Rs.2,00,000/towards medical and nourishment expenses. He was aged about 51 years at the time of accident and was working as Store in Charge at Safallakkar Build Tech LLP(Unishre), Bengaluru, earning Rs.22,000/- per month as salary.

¶30

Hence, the claim petition was filed by the appellant/petitioner under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The Tribunal, on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the petition in part and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,51,348/-, along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The Tribunal held respondent No.1/ Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation.

¶31

Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondents and perused the materials on record.

¶32

¶33

The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submitted that the appellant sustained fracture of C-7 bone and other fracture injuries to the spinal cord. Therefore, the compensation awarded on each head is meager. Hence, prays for enhancement of compensation.

¶34

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1- Insurance Company submitted that the amount of compensation awarded on each head is correct and proper according to the nature of injuries sustained. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the quantum. Hence, requests for dismissal of the appeal.

¶35

In the present case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as follows:

¶36

Pain, Injuries And Suffering	:	Rs.	40,000/-
Medical Expenses	:	Rs.	1,59,148/-
Conveyance, Attendance and other Misc.expenses	:	Rs.	15,000/-
Loss of income during treatment	:	Rs.	87,200/-
Loss of amenities in life	:	Rs.	50,000/-
TOTAL	:	Rs.	3,51,348/-

¶37

The documents Ex.P.5- wound certificate, Ex.P6Discharge summary, Ex.P13- case sheet, Ex.P14- 7 X-ray

¶38

¶39

films prove the fact that the appellant had sustained "Contusion neck with C7 right facet fracture with C6-C7 anterior transekation with progressive neurodeficits". As

¶40

per the medical records, the injuries are grievous in nature. Therefore, the compensation awarded under the head ‘pain and suffering’ is on lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.60,000/-.

¶41

The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,59,148/- towards ‘medical expenses' as per bills produced. The amount awarded towards ‘medical expenses’ at Rs.1,59,148/- is as per the medical records and therefore, needs no interference.

¶42

The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000/towards ‘Conveyance charges, attendance charges and other miscellaneous expenses' and Rs.87,200/- towards loss of income during treatment which are correct and therefore, needs no interference.

¶43

On considering the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant-claimant as aforestated, the compensation

¶44

¶45

awarded is Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities which is on lower side. The claimant was 57 years and had suffered fracture injuries to the spinal cord, which is a main bone of the body and he has to suffer throughout his life. The said fractures and complete recovery of the said injuries is bleak. He is facing difficulties in walking, sleeping, squatting, bending and for longstanding etc., and he is forced to wear cervical belt throughout the day which would cause mental agony to the claimant. Therefore, the compensation awarded under the head ‘loss of amenities in life’ is on lesser side and the same is enhanced to Rs.80,000/-.

¶46

Further, the Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head 'future medical expenses'. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant-claimant as aforestated, the claimant is concerned to take future medical treatment. Therefore, compensation of Rs.40,000/- is awarded under the head 'future medical expenses', but this shall not carry interest.

¶47

¶48

Accordingly, the appellant is entitled for the following enhanced compensation under various heads as follows:

¶49

Pain, Injuries And Suffering	:	Rs.	60,000/-
Medical Expenses	:	Rs.	1,59,148/-
Conveyance, attendance and other misc. expenses	:	Rs.	15,000/-
Loss of income during treatment	:	Rs.	87,200/-
Loss of amenities in life	:	Rs.	80,000/-
Future Medical expenses	:	Rs.	40,000/-
TOTAL	:	Rs.	4,41,348/-

¶50

Thus, the appellant is awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,41,348/- as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.3,51,348/- . The appellant is therefore entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.90,000/- (Rs.4,41,348 – Rs.3,51,348), along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit.

¶51

15. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i. The appeal is allowed in part .

¶54

¶55

ii. The appellant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.90,000/- (Rs.4,41,348 – Rs.3,51,348). The Tribunal has awarded rate of interest at 9% p.a and same is reduced to 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit on the enhanced amount. (The compensation of Rs.40,000/- is awarded under the head 'future medical expenses' shall not carry interest) The other terms observed by the Tribunal in the judgment are kept intact.

¶56

iii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶57

iv. Draw the award accordingly.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

SKS

Nithyananda Shetty K v. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nithyananda Shetty K v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director Vs Shri Yogesha K L @ Yogesh K L

Shri Yogesha K L @ Yogesh K L Vs the Managing Director

Legal Manager Vs Hanumanthaiah

Sri Ankesh Vs Liberty Videocon

Siddaramu K @ Siddaramaiah K Vs Praveen M N

Mohammed Ibrahim Vs Universal Sompo Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.