Partly allowed

Sarin S v. Royal Sundaram Alliance

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2022MFA/2888/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under MV Act Section 173(1), the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded in a motor accident case. The court modified the Tribunal's award by increasing the quantum based on a reassessed percentage of disability and head-wise compensation, directing the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; impugned award modified by enhancing compensation by Rs.4,13,800/- along with interest at 6% p.a.; insurer directed to deposit amount within 4 weeks.

Sarin S Vs Royal Sundaram Alliance — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 2888 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. JOSHI

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2888 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SARIN.S S/O SAHADEVAN, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT SOUBHAGYA, MARIKUNNU POST, CALICUT, KERALA - 673 012.

¶13

...APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. SHEKARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.132, SRI BALAJI SOVEREIGN 2^ND FLOOR, NEAX TO URBAN EDGE, BRIGADE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 025.

¶17

¶18

MFA No. 2888 of 2017

¶19

2. B.AFSAR D.NO.C-4, MASJID MAIN ROAD, VIJAYA BANK COLONY, K.R.PURAM BANGALORE - 46.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI RAVI.S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO DISPENSED WITH R2 V/O DATED:19.08.2021)

¶22

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.2175/2014 ON THE FILE OF XXI ACMM AND XXIII, A.S.C.J, AND MACT BENGALURU PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY C.M.JOSHI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 09.01.2017 passed in MVC NO.2175/2014 by the learned XXI ACMM and XXIII, A.S.C.J, and MACT Bengaluru, partly allowing the petition awarding compensation of Rs.11,33,000/-, petitioner has approached this Court in appeal by urging various grounds.

¶26

The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶27

¶28

MFA No. 2888 of 2017

¶29

The brief facts are as below:

¶30

That on 16.11.2013 at about 04.40 p.m. the petitioner was proceeding in a motorbike bearing No.KA-01-EG-5793 in service

¶31

road near Narayana Hrudalaya Bus stop, Bommasandra, Anekal Taluk, the driver of the lorry bearing NO.KA-05-D-7605 came from main road to service road in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner causing grievous injuries. Immediately he was taken to Sparsh Hospital for treatment and the petitioner spent a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards treatment. It is further case of the petitioner that, prior to the accident, he was working as a Junior Engineer and earning a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month. But, due to the accident he has lost the said income and has suffered a lot physically and mentally. Respondents being the insurer and RC owner of the offending vehicle are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, he seeks for compensation of Rs.60,00,000/-.

¶32

In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent No.1 appeared and filed its written statement and respondent No.2 did not appear before the Tribunal in spite of due service of summons and therefore he was placed ex-parte.

¶33

¶34

MFA No. 2888 of 2017

¶35

Respondent No.1 in its written statement has contended

¶36

that, 2nd respondent being the RC owner has not complied the mandatory duty of furnishing the particulars of the policy, date, time and place of accident, the particulars of he injured and particulars of the driver of the offending vehicle. The jurisdictional police have also not complied the mandatory required of M.V Act and furnished information of the accident and other documents. It is the further contention of the Respondent No.1 that the driver of the lorry has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and hence insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 also denied the negligence of lorry driver and alleged that accident happened due to negligence of petitioner. It also denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioner and sought to dismiss the petition.

¶37

On the basis of the above rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues for its consideration and after hearing both the parties and considering the oral evidence of PWs-1 1 to 3 and documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P23 on behalf of the petitioner, has allowed the petition in part awarding the compensation of Rs.11,33,000/- under different heads as below:

¶38

¶39

MFA No. 2888 of 2017

¶40

Loss of future income	Rs. 3,88,800/-
Pain and sufferings	Rs. 50,000/-
Loss of amenities	Rs. 15,000/-
Medical expenses	Rs. 6,59,183/-
Nourishing food, conveyance etc.	Rs. 20,000/-
Total	Rs.11,33,983/-
and rounded off to	Rs.11,33,000/-

¶41

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

¶42

Respondent No.1- insurance company has appeared in pursuant to the notice issued by this Court and notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with .

¶43

Tribunal records have been secured and we have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company/respondent No.1.

¶44

The fact that there was accident on 16-11-2013 involving the petitioner and the vehicle insured by the respondent-Insurance company is not in dispute as the insurance company has not come up with any Cross Objections/appeal. So also, the fact that the

¶45

¶46

MFA No. 2888 of 2017

¶47

offending vehicle was driven by the driver having valid driving licence at the time of the accident is not in dispute.

¶48

The only point urged before this Court by both the sides is in respect of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶49

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company and having perused the evidence on records, it is found that the petitioner had sustained injury to his head, chest abdomen, fracture of five ribs with hydro pneumothorax and contusion of right lower lobe, large retroperitoneal haemotoma with moderate hemoperitoneum with active bleeding of liver and also fracture of C7 transverse process, fracture of right transverse, multiple laceration over both lower limbs and right side posterior dislocation of elbow joint and wound on the left thigh and right ankle. These injuries were treated and his injuries resulted in permanent disability. The evidence of PW2 discloses that the petitioner is suffering from 36% of the physical disability of lower limb and 24.5% of his whole body. However, the Tribunal considered the functional disability of the petitioner at 10%. It is pertinent to note that the dislocation of elbow joint and the fracture of C7 transverse process would definitely

¶50

¶51

MFA No. 2888 of 2017

¶52

result in permanent disability to the petitioner who is aged 21 years. Though it is contended that the petitioner had to submit resignation to his job as Junior Engineer while he was earning Rs.18,000/- per month, there is no clinching evidence to show that he lost his job only on account of the disability sustained by him. The Tribunal, has considered this aspect in para 10 of its judgment. It is pertinent to note that the injury has definitely affected his earning ability as a Junior Engineer and in our considered opinion, it has resulted in disability of 20%. It would be proper to note that, 24.5% and 36% disability attributable to the lower and upper limbs should have been considered by the Tribunal, with reference to his avocation.

¶53

Sofar as the income of the petitioner is concerned, the Tribunal has accepted the income of Rs.18,000/- per month and has calculated the loss of future income. Therefore, by considering the functional disability of the petitioner at 20%, the loss of future income has to be calculated as "Rs.18,000/- x 12 x 18 x 20% = Rs.7,77,600/-."

¶54

Considering the nature of injuries, we find that a sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering is adequate. Sofar as, loss of amenities are concerned, the petitioner is going to suffer

¶55

¶56

MFA No. 2888 of 2017

¶57

the injuries throughout his life and therefore, it would be proper to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- under this head.

¶58

The petitioner was inpatient for considerable time and therefore, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. We feel that the nature of injuries and the treatment warranted a sum of Rs.30,000/- under this head and therefore, the same is awarded to him. The Tribunal has allowed the claim in its entirety so far as the medical expenses is concerned. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to the modified compensation as under:

¶59

Loss of future income	Rs. 7,77,600/-
Pain and sufferings	Rs. 50,000/-
Loss of amenities	Rs. 30,000/-
Medical expenses	Rs. 6,59,183/-
Nourishing food, conveyance etc.	Rs. 30,000/-
Total	Rs.15,46,783/-
Less: awarded by Tribunal	Rs.11,33,983/-
Enhancement	Rs. 4,13,783/-
(rounded off to)	Rs. 4,13,800/-

¶60

Thus, we propose to enhance the compensation by a sum of Rs.4 , 13,800/ - in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

(i) Appeal is allowed in part

¶63

¶64

MFA No. 2888 of 2017

¶65

(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 09 . 01.2017 passed in MVC No.2175/2014 by the Tribunal is modified by enhancing the compensation of Rs.4 , 13,800/ - together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit.

¶66

(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.

¶67

(iv) The conditions of apportionment and deposit as ordered by the Tribunal remain unaltered.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

tsn*

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23

Sarin S v. Royal Sundaram Alliance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarin S v. Royal Sundaram Alliance

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

Smt H R Rajeshwari Vs Muthu

State of Karnataka Vs Kenchaveerappa

State of Karnataka Vs Purushothama @ Mari

Smt Syamala Vs Sri v Selvaraju

The State by Mandya Rural Police Station Vs Ramaraju

Sri Shankar B R Vs the Branch Manager