Partly allowed

Shivappa S/O Late Hanumappa v. H M Shiva Prasad

Karnataka HC11 Apr 2022MFA/3005/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a motor vehicles first appeal filed against a Tribunal's award of Rs. 37,000 compensation. The Court enhanced the award by considering details of injuries, loss of amenities, and attendant expenses, totaling Rs. 1,30,000.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced total compensation awarded at Rs. 1,30,000 with an additional Rs. 93,000 over the Tribunal's award, plus interest at 6% per annum.

Shivappa S/O Late Hanumappa Vs H M Shiva Prasad — Medical Negligence | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3005/2012 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHIVAPPA S/O LATE HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS POLICE CONSTABLE R/AT , C/O SUPRITHA NILAYA BEHIND KALSIDASA JUNIOR COLLEGE SIRAGATE TUMKUR – 571 106.

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. L.S. SHANKAR, ADVOCATE )

¶11

AND:

¶12

H.M. SHIVA PRASAD

¶13

S/O MALESHAWRAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT TMU OFFICE MALLASANDRA AT POST TUMKUR – 572 108.

¶14

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD 1^ST FLOOR, JHAYADEVA COMPLEX PB NO.54, B H ROAD TUMKUR – 571 102.

¶15

… RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. HARINI SHIVANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 R-1 SERVED)

¶17

¶18

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.1.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.135/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT-10, TUMKUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the appellant-claimant, challenging the judgment and award dated 05.01.2012, passed in MVC No.135/2009, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, at Tumkur seeking enhancement.

¶22

Brief facts:

¶23

That on 01.10.2008, at abut 9.20 p.m., the appellant - claimant stood along with his vehicle beside the road Koratagere-Madhugiri road, in front of the Koratagere taluk office gate at that relevant point of time, the rider of the Hero Honda Splendor motor bike bearing registration

¶24

¶25

No.KA-06 : EA 2212 drove the same in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the appellantclaimant and caused the accident. Due to the said accident, the appellant-claimant sustained injuries. Immediately. after the accident the appellant-claimant was shifted to General Hospital, Koratagere and after first aid he was shifted to Mallya Hospital, Bangalore and admitted as inpatient and took treatment for about two months during that period he went to undergone for surgical operation to his fracture and spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses.

¶26

Prior to the accident, the claimant was hale and healthy and was working as Police constable and used to getting salary of Rs.10,000/per month and contributing the same to maintain his family. Hence, a claim petition was filed by the appellant under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal through counsels and filed their written statements. The Tribunal on appreciating the

¶27

¶28

materials on record, allowed the petition in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs.37,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal held respondent No.2 – insurance company therein, liable to pay the compensation.

¶29

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has only awarded compensation under the head ‘Injuries, Pain and Suffering’ at Rs.37,000/- and has not awarded any compensation under other heads. Therefore, prays to award compensation on other heads, viz., Medical Treatment, loss of income during treatment periods, loss of amenities, etc. Therefore, prays for enhancement of the compensation.

¶30

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, vehemently argued that the Tribunal has correctly awarded compensation which needs no interference. Therefore, prays to dismiss the

¶31

¶32

appeal by confirming the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶33

Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 – insurance company and perused the materials on record.

¶34

Exhibit-P2 is the Wound Certificate which proves the appellant-claimant had sustained the following

¶35

injuries:

¶36

i. Multiple abrasion over right frontal region. ii. Acute extra axial haemotoma seen in left temporal frontal region.

¶37

iii. Fracture of lateral wall and fracture of right temporo parictal bone.

¶38

iv. Diffuse Axond injury.

¶39

The above injuries shows that the appellant had sustained injuries on the skull, which is grievous in nature. Therefore, considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant, the amount awarded under the head ‘injuries, pain and suffering’ is on lower side and the same is needed to be enhanced. Accordingly, a

¶40

¶41

compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under

¶42

the head ‘Injuries, Pain And Suffering’ .

¶43

It is submitted that the appellant-claimant is a

¶44

Police Constable. Subsequent to the accident also, the appellant is continued in the services, as Police Constable. Therefore, he is receiving the salary. Therefore, there is no ‘loss of earning capacity due to injuries’ and hence no compensation can be awarded under the said head.

¶45

As stated above, the appellant had sustained injuries, which are mainly to the skull. Therefore, the appellant had sustained injuries which has caused discomfort and inconvenience and also the appellant might had to depend on others for his day to day daily activities, during the days of treatment and thereafter for few days. Therefore, the compensation under the head ‘loss of amenities’ can be awarded. Accordingly, a compensation of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the head ‘Loss Of Amenities’ .

¶46

¶47

Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head ‘Transportation,

¶48

Conveyance And Attendant Charges’. The evidence on record reveals that the appellant was admitted as inpatient in the hospital for a period of 52 days. Therefore, the appellant must have been dependent on attendants and must have spent amount towards ‘Transportations,

¶49

Incidental Expenses, Conveyance, Etc’ . But the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the said head. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under the head transportation, conveyance and attendant charges.

¶50

Further, a compensation of Rs.10,000/- is

¶51

awarded under the head expense towards taking ‘Extra

¶52

Nourishment And Food ’.

¶53

Hence, the appellant is entitled for a total

¶54

enhanced compensation, under various heads as follows:

¶55

Pain, Injuries And Suffering : Rs. 50,000/Loss of Amenities : Rs. 50,000/-

¶56

¶57

Transportation, Conveyance And : Rs. 20,000/Attendant Charges’ Extra Nourishment And Food : Rs. 10,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 1,30,000/-

¶58

Therefore, the appellant is awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- as against the

¶59

compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.37,000/-. Hence, the appellant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.93,000/- (Rs.1,30,000 – Rs.37,000), along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit.

¶60

14. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

i. The appeal is allowed in part .

¶63

ii. The appellant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.93,000/(Rupees

¶64

Ninety Three Thousand Only), along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶65

¶66

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.

¶67

iv. Draw award accordingly.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

Shivappa S/O Late Hanumappa v. H M Shiva Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivappa S/O Late Hanumappa v. H M Shiva Prasad

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

Branch Manager Vs Hemachandra Gowda S/O Late Narayana Gowda

Sri Praneyata Sharma Vs the Manager

Nataraja M Kasetty Vs Manohar

Shri Vimal K S S/O Sri Sugantha Kumar L R Vs the Bracnh Manager

The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Renukamma

The Branch Manager Vs N Puttaraju