Partly allowed

Sri T Basavaiah v. the Manager

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2022MFA/3590/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant appealed against the compensation quantum awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for a fracture injury. The High Court modified the award, granting an additional RS.60,000/- comprising increases for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and monthly salary loss during the initial recovery period. The insurance company is directed to pay with interest.

What did the court decide?

Modified the Tribunal's award to grant an additional compensation of RS.60,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit.

Sri T Basavaiah Vs the Manager — Medical Negligence | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

M.F.A.NO.3590/2016 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI T. BASAVAIAH, S/O. LATE THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.22, 9^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, PARIMALANAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 096.

¶8

...APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI MAHADEVA SWAMY P, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE MANAGER, TATA AIG GEN. INS. CO. LTD. NO.69, MILLER'S ROAD, BANGALORE-56.

¶12

INDUKURU GURU PRASAD, S/O UTHAPPA, C/O BALAIAH, NO.E-53-A, 9^TH CROSS, PARIMALANAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-96.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 19.02.2018, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶15

¶16

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 9.2.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.5111/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 22^ND ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 20^TH ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

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

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

¶20

learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶21

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 09.02.2016, passed in M.V.C.No.5111/2013, on the file of the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge and XX ACMM and Member, MACT, Bengaluru (‘the Tribunal’ for short) questioning the quantum of compensation.

¶22

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before

¶23

the Tribunal is that he met with an accident and as a result he has suffered communited fracture distal end of radius right and he underwent surgery of external fixator and K-wire fixation. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- under the head pain and suffering. Taking note of the injuries suffered by the

¶24

¶25

claimant, an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head pain and suffering.

¶26

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.49,043/-

¶27

under the head medical expenses and the same is based on documentary evidence and hence it does not require interference of this Court.

¶28

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/under the head food and nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges and the claimant was an inpatient for a period of four days. Hence, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not require interference of this Court.

¶29

The doctor assessed the disability of 10% to the whole body, however the claimant continued the job and hence the Tribunal has rightly not awarded any compensation under the head future loss of income.

¶30

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/-

¶31

under the head loss of amenities of life and the same is meager

¶32

and hence additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the said head.

¶33

¶34

The Tribunal has not considered the loss of income

¶35

during the laid up period. The claimant has suffered the fracture and it requires minimum one month for uniting of fracture and for rest. No documents are placed before the Court for how long he was an inpatient in the hospital. The claimant was an employee and he was drawing salary of Rs.39,000/- per month. Hence, one month salary is taken as loss of income and the same is rounded off to Rs.40,000/-.

¶36

In all, the claimant is entitled for additional compensation of Rs.60,000/-.

¶37

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶40

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 09.02.2016, passed in M.V.C.No.5111/2013, is modified granting additional compensation of Rs.60,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶41

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Sri T Basavaiah v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T Basavaiah v. the Manager

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 Sannamma Vs Sri Kiran Kumar @ Kiran

Puttandamma Vs Murugesh N

R Mohamed Gouspeer Vs M Vishvanth

Sri Shanthakumar B J Vs the Divisional Manager

Mrs Avamma Vs Sri. Iqbal

Prakash Vs State by