Partly allowed

Srinivasa R v. Sathisha

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2022MFA/2980/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal judgment awarded compensation enhancement for motor vehicle accident injuries. The Court modified the award increasing total compensation to Rs.2,17,051/- with interest.

What did the court decide?

Modification of the impugned judgment and award granting enhanced compensation of Rs.2,17,051/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

Srinivasa R Vs Sathisha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

M.F.A.NO.2980/2013 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRINIVASA R., S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS VIJAYANAGARA BADAVANE 1^ST STAGE, 2^ND MAIN HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201. … APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI B.B.GIRISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

1 . SATHISHA S/O CHANDREGOWDA GUNDENAHALLY KOPPALU KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.

¶11

2 . UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL

¶12

INSURANCE CO. LTD., INFE CITYMAHAL OPP. RING ROAD, ANDERI (WEST) MUMBAI-400 058 REP. UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., K V D COVER, 7:3, 2^ND FLOOR BLOCK WAY FINANCE, 100 FEET ROAD

¶13

¶14

INDIRANAGARA, MADRAS ROAD BENGALURU-38.

¶15

... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 [THROUGH VC]; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 26.02.2015)

¶17

THIS M.F.A., IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.06.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.214/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-2, MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

¶21

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 23.06.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.214/2012 on the file of the II Fast Track Court and MACT., at Hassan (‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶22

The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

¶23

¶24

This is an appeal filed for challenging the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- on the head of pain and sufferings. It is a case of amputation of right little finger. Hence, the same is enhanced to Rs.30,000/- as against Rs.20,000/-.

¶25

In respect of loss of amenities, only Rs.5,000/- was awarded. The claimant is aged about 29 years and he has to lead rest of his life with 8% disability as assessed by the Tribunal. Hence, the same is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- as against Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶26

The Tribunal has taken the income of Rs.4,000/- per month and notional income would be Rs.6,500/-. However, taking into consideration the nature of injuries, amputation and 8% disability and applying the relevant multiplier 17, the future loss of income comes to Rs.1,06,080/- ( 6500x12x17x8%)

¶27

The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on

¶28

the head of loss of income during the laid-up period. Having taken note of the nature of injuries and amputation, it is

¶29

¶30

appropriate to take the same for a period of three months, then

¶31

it comes to Rs.19,500/- (6500x3).

¶32

The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on the head of medical expenses. On perusal of the medical records particularly, discharge summary, it discloses that he was an inpatient for a period of five days. The bills produced for having purchased the medicines from M.G.Hospital and the bills enclosed regarding the surgeon charges since his finger was amputated and implant charges of Rs.5,000/-. The discharge bill also discloses that he was an inpatient from 21.12.2011 to 26.12.2011, which includes the amount of Rs.5,860/- as inpatient bill and also the other hospital bills viz., Mangala Hospital and prescriptions. Having taken note of it, the same comes to Rs.41,471/-, wherein, an advance amount is also deducted from the total bill. When such being the case, the Tribunal ought to have considered the same, the same has not been considered and not discussed anything about the medical bills, even though the documents are marked as Exs.P10, 11 and 12. Hence, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.41,471/- towards medical expenses.

¶33

¶34

9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶35

following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i) The appeal is allowed-in-part.

¶38

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 23.06.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.214/2012 is modified granting compensation of Rs.2,17,051/- as against Rs.1,00,280/- with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of petition till deposit.

¶39

(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount with interest within six weeks from today.

¶40

(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

cp*

Srinivasa R v. Sathisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivasa R v. Sathisha

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. Dharnappa Shetty Vs Mr. Thimmappa Poojary

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt Nagalakshmi

M/S Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd, Vs Kiran @ Kirankumar

Sri. N. Jagadeesh Vs the Manager

Smt Muniyamma Vs M/S. Bharathi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd.

B.S.Krushi Vs Badhruddin