Allowed

Sri Aslam Pasha v. Sri Y v Venkataramappa

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2022MFA/3793/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a motor accident possession appeal filed for enhancement of compensation. The court upheld the Tribunal's award on medical and attendant charges but enhanced the compensation for 'Pain and Suffering' and 'Loss of Amenities' due to the nature of injuries and treatment duration, rounding the total payable amount to Rs. 1,92,550 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.1,92,550 with interest at 6% p.a. payable by the insurance company within six weeks.

Sri Aslam Pasha Vs Sri Y v Venkataramappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶6

M.F.A.NO.3793/2015 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI ASLAM PASHA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O ABDUL RAFIQKRISHNA REDDY, R/A NO.914, VV PURAM, NEAR GOWRI PRIMARY SCHOOL, GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN – 561 208

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. D.NAGARAJA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI.Y.V. VENKATARAMAPPA MAJOR

¶13

S/O VENKATARAYAPPA

¶14

R/A YALAGERE VILLAGE AND POST

¶15

CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 208

¶16

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., P.O. BOX NO.9407, CHAKALA MIDC POST OFFICE MUMBAI – 400 093

¶17

REP.BY ITS MANAGER

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. B.PRADEEP, ADV FOR R2 R1 SD & UNREPRESENTED)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE MACT, BANGALORE AND PASS THE ORDERS TO ENHANCE THE AWARD

¶21

¶22

AMOUNT WITH INTERST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. TILL THE REALIZATION PASSED BY THE HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOWRIBIDANUR, IN MVC.NO.14/2008 IN JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.01.2015, ETC.

¶23

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Though this appeal is posted for Admission, with the

¶26

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

¶27

This appeal is by the petitioner for enhancement.

¶28

For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.

¶29

Petitioner has filed this appeal seeking enhancement contending that the compensation granted is highly insufficient, inadequate and disproportionate. The compensation granted under various heads is on the lower side and requires reconsideration by this court.

¶30

¶31

It is the case of the petitioner that on

¶32

06.08.2008 at 1.50 p.m. when petitioner was walking on the left side of MG Road, Gowribidanur Town, driver of Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.KA-40-M-1027 (herein after referred to as offending vehicle), drove it in a rash or negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner and as a result of which petitioner sustained injuries and suffered permanent partial disability. Respondent No.1 is the owner and Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle and as such jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

¶33

Respondent No.1 filed written statement denying the petition averments, but contending that since the vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.2 in the event of allowing the claim petition Respondent No.2 be directed to pay the compensation.

¶34

Respondent No.2 though appeared, did not choose to file written statement.

¶35

¶36

During enquiry petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and the Doctor as PW-2 and relied upon Ex.P1 to 11.

¶37

Respondents have not led any oral or

¶38

documentary evidence on their behalf.

¶39

Vide impugned judgment and award, the

¶40

Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and granted compensation in a sum of Rs.1,27,531.70 Ps/- as detailed below:

¶41

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Medical expenses	67,031.70
Attendant and ancillary charges	13,800
Future medical expenses	5,000
Pain and suffering	10,000
Loss of amenities and future unhappiness	5,000
Loss of income during treatment period	26,700
Loss of future income	Nil
TOTAL	1,27,531.70

¶42

¶43

The respondent No.2 Insurance company has not challenged the impugned judgment and award.

¶44

Thus petitioner has maintained this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation contending that due to accidental injuries he has suffered disability and no compensation is granted for future loss of income and the compensation granted under other heads is also on the lower side. Therefore it has become necessary to reexamine the impugned judgment and award to ascertain whether compensation granted is just and proper, if not, whether it is a case for interference by this court.

¶45

Loss of future earning and future prospectus:

¶46

According to the petitioner he was a driver earning Rs.8,000/- per month and on account of injuries suffered now is unable to pursue the said avocation. Ex-P1 & 2 are the medical certificates, according to which and coupled with the evidence of the doctor i.e., PW-2, petitioner has not sustained any permanent disability and in fact he has

¶47

¶48

deposed that petitioner is fit to drive heavy motor vehicle. In view of the same, the Tribunal has refused to grant any compensation under the head loss of future earnings and loss of future prospects. I find no reason to interfere with the same.

¶49

Pain and suffering: As per Ex-P1 & 2 the medical certificates, though petitioner has suffered grievous injury, he has not sustained any disability. Though petitioner has claimed that he suffered 22% permanent partial disability of the whole body, there is no evidence to establish the same. Therefore, the Tribunal has granted compensation sum of Rs.10,000/- under this head. However, having regard to the fact that based on the documents the Tribunal has held that petitioner was under treatment for three months, the compensation granted under this head is on the lower side. Taking into consideration the nature of the injury sustained, treatment taken and the duration of treatment I hold that granting additional sum of Rs.30,000/- under this head

¶50

¶51

would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the compensation under this head is enhanced to Rs.40,000/as against Rs.10,000/- granted by the Tribunal.

¶52

Compensation for laid up period: The Tribunal

¶53

has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.26,700/- under this head taking the income as Rs.8,000/- and period of treatment as three months. However, petitioner has failed to prove that he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Since the accident took place on 06.08.2008, as per the Lok Adalath chart, which is based on minimum wages the notional income ought to have been taken at Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, I hold that compensation in a sum of Rs.26,700/- granted by the Tribunal under this head is reasonable and adequate and it calls for no interference.

¶54

Medical expenses: Based on medical bills, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.67,031.70 ps. and therefore it requires no interference.

¶55

¶56

17. Attendant and Ancillary Charges: The Tribunal

¶57

has granted compensation of Rs.13,800/- under this head at the rate of Rs.200/- per day for the period during which petitioner was under treatment. It is reasonable and adequate and calls for no interference.

¶58

Future medical expenses: In the absence of any

¶59

evidence with regard to petitioner having suffered any disability, the grant of compensation sum of Rs.5,000/under this head is reasonable and adequate and calls for no interference.

¶60

19. Loss of amenities of life: Tribunal has granted

¶61

compensation in a sum of Rs.5,000/- under this head. Even though petitioner has not suffered any partial permanent disability, having regard to the fact that he was under treatment for about three months and spent Rs.67,031.70 ps. for treatment, I hold that the compensation under granted under this head is on the lower side and granting additional sum of Rs.35,000/-

¶62

¶63

would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, compensation under this head is increased to Rs.40,000/- as against Rs.5,000/- granted by the Tribunal.

¶64

Thus, in all petitioner is entitled for

¶65

compensation in a sum of Rs.1,92,531.70 Ps (rounded of to Rs.1,92,550/-) as against Rs.1,27,531.70 Ps granted by the

¶66

Tribunal as detailed below:

¶67

Heads	Amount granted by the Tribunal In Rs.Ps.	Amount granted by this Court In Rs.Ps
Medical expenses	67,031.70 Ps	67,031.70
Attendant and ancilliary charges	13,800	13,800
Future medical expenses	5,000	5,000
Pain and suffering	10,000	40,000
Loss of amenities and future unhappiness	5,000	40,000
Loss of income during treatment period	26,700	26,700
Loss of future income	Nil	Nil
TOTAL	1,27,531.70	1,92,531.70

¶68

Rounded of to -1,92,550/-

¶69

¶70

Of course petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation.

¶71

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

(i) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶74

(ii) Appellant/petitioner is entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.1,92,550/as against

¶75

Rs.1,27,531.70 ps. granted by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization (minus the amount already paid/deposited)

¶76

(iii) The respondent No.2 Insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

¶77

Sri Aslam Pasha v. Sri Y v Venkataramappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Aslam Pasha v. Sri Y v Venkataramappa

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

Sri T P Ravindran Vs Mr a Rathnam @ Murugan

Kum Usha Vs Sri Arun Kumar

Mr. Jayanth Vs Mr. M a Abdul Kunhi

A. P. S. R. T. C. Vs Smt Asha

Shivayogi Kiran S Vs Shivakumar

Sri Bheemanna Vs Sri Hullurappa H