Partly allowed

Geetha v. K Annappaswamy

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2022MFA/3451/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant appeal, correcting the Tribunal's liability assignment to the Insurance Company based on Mukund Dewangan precedent. Compensation was enhanced for pain, suffering, loss of amenities, attendant care, loss of earning during treatment, and future considering 15% disability and age, totaling Rs. 2,93,200 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment modified to award compensation of Rs. 2,93,200 with 6% per annum interest; liability fastened on Insurance Company; deposit directed within six weeks.

Geetha Vs K Annappaswamy — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

M.F.A.NO.3451/2014 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GEETHA W/O YOGESH GOWDA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS KEREKODIHALLI VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN TALUK-573 201

¶9

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O SURESH S.N., VIDYANAGAR HASSAN-573 201. … APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI RAGHU R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI D.P.ASHOK, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . K. ANNAPPASWAMY S/O V.M. KALAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS AJJENAHALLI VILLAGE VADDARAHALLI POST SHRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK-573 201

¶13

2 . THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NO.576, REACHER HOUSE NYGAM CROSS ROAD, VADALA

¶14

¶15

MUMBAI-400 031 REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 1^ST FLOOR, KRUTHIKA ARCADE M.P.I., S.A., O.S.NO.329331 N.R.CIRCLE, HOLENARASIPURA ROAD HASSAN-573 201. ... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED)

¶17

THIS M.F.A., IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.661/2010 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the

¶21

consent of both the learned counsel it is taken up for final disposal.

¶22

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

¶23

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the

¶24

judgment and award dated 05.03.2013 passed in

¶25

¶26

M.V.C.No.661/2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT., at Hassan (‘the Tribunal’ for short), questioning the liability and the quantum of compensation.

¶27

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

¶28

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on the date of the accident i.e., on 14.01.2010 at about 12:30 p.m, the claimant along with her husband was sitting in front side of their house at Ajjenahalli, at that time, an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-46-961 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her, as a result, she has sustained multiple injuries.

¶29

The claimant in order to substantiate her case, she has examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined the Doctor as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P14. On the other hand, the respondents have examined the witnesses as

¶30

¶31

R.W.1 and R.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R3.

¶32

The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, awarded compensation of Rs.1,22,500/- and fastened the liability on the owner. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the claimant questioning the quantum as well as the liability.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurer instead of the Insurance Company. The vehicle involved in the accident is only a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and came to an erroneous conclusion that he was not having a transport endorsement. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [AIR 2017 SC 3368] , the liability has to be fastened on the Insurance Company.

¶34

The learned counsel also would submit that the

¶35

quantum of compensation awarded is very meager and it was an

¶36

¶37

accident of the year 2010 and the income taken was only Rs.4,000/- and the notional income would be Rs.5,500/-. The disability taken is also very less and it requires an interference of this Court.

¶38

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company would submit that the driver of the vehicle was not having the transport endorsement. The learned counsel also would submit that the Tribunal has awarded the just and reasonable compensation and it does not require any interference.

¶39

Having heard the arguments of the respective counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY

¶40

LIMITED [AIR 2017 SC 3368] , if the driver is having the driving license to drive LMV vehicle even in the absence of the transport endorsement, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Hence, there is a force in the contention of the arguments of the learned counsel for the claimant that the Tribunal has committed an error.

¶41

¶42

With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimant has sustained two fractures. The Tribunal while awarding compensation considering the nature of injuries as well as the evidence of P.W.2, she was an inpatient for a period of 24 days awarded compensation of Rs.35,000/- on the head of pain and suffering, the same requires little enhancement. Hence awarded Rs.40,000/- as against 35,000/awarded on this head.

¶43

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,000/- on the head

¶44

of medical expenses, the same is based on the documentary evidence.

¶45

The Tribunal also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards special diet, nursing and extra nourishment charges and conveyance and Rs.6,000/- towards attendant charges. She was an inpatient for a period of 24 days. Hence, the same is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- as against Rs.16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶46

The Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.8,000/towards loss of earning during treatment period. Having

¶47

¶48

considered the nature of injuries, it requires minimum four months time for uniting of fracture and taking the income of Rs.5,500/- per month for a period of four months awarded an amount of Rs.22,000/- as against Rs.8,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶49

This Court has to re-appreciate the material available

¶50

on record, particularly, Ex.P6-Wound Certificate, which reveals that she has suffered the fracture of right illia bone, fracture of medial melleolous and fracture of left tibia and fibula. She was an inpatient for a period of 24 days. The Doctor assessed 22% disability in respect of the particular limbs. The Tribunal taken only 7%. The Tribunal fails to take note of the material on record, particularly, the Wound Certificate as well as the nature of injuries sustained by her i.e., fracture of right illia bone, fracture of medial melleolous and fracture of left tibia and fibula. When such being the case, though the Doctor has assessed the disability on lesser side on both the limbs, the Tribunal ought to have taken note of the said fact into consideration. Hence, it is appropriate to take the disability at 15%. Having taken 15% disability and the monthly income of Rs.5,500/-, she was aged

¶51

¶52

about 22 years at the time of accident, the relevant multiplier is 18, ‘loss of future earning’ comes to Rs.1,78,200/- (5500x12x18x15/100).

¶53

The Tribunal awarded only Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities. When this Court re-assessed the disability at 15%, the claimant was aged about 22 years and she has to lead her rest of life with the said disability. Hence, it is appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.30,000/- as against Rs.5,000/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶54

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶55

following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

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

¶58

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 05.03.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.661/2010, is hereby modified awarding the compensation of Rs.2,93,200/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶59

¶60

(iii) The liability is fastened on the Insurance Company by exonerating the liability of the insured.

¶61

(iv) The respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount within six weeks from today.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

cp*

Geetha v. K Annappaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetha v. K Annappaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Renukamma Vs Sri Hanumanthaiah

Divisional Manager Vs Smt Siddamma

S Chetan Vs Santhosh Kumar

Sri Kiran Kumar J.S. @ Kiran Vs Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

The Managing Director Vs Kumari Varshitha P

Sri B M Shivamurthy @ Shivamurthy Vs Divisional Controller