Partly allowed

Chikkanna @ Chikkegowda v. Venkategowda B R

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2022MFA/4174/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal partially, modifying the Motor Vehicles Tribunal's award. The Court enhanced compensation from Rs.6,69,000 to Rs.17,03,500, considering enhanced loss of income, future prospectus, and attendant charges for life-long care due to paraplegia.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.17,03,500 from Rs.6,69,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

Chikkanna @ Chikkegowda Vs Venkategowda B R — Medical Negligence | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

M.F.A.No.4174/2013 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

CHIKKANNA @ CHIKKEGOWDA S/O MALIGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O DODDA KUNCHEVU KOPPALU HALEKOTE HOBLI, H N PURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-5731

¶8

...APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI RAGHU R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B M MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

VENKATEGOWDA B R S/O RANGEGOWDA R/O VENKATADRI NILAYA UDAYAGIRI EXTN., HASSAN TOWN-573201

¶12

UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD CRYSTAL PLAZA, INFRONT OF INFANTRY MAL LINK ROAD, ANDERI WEST MUMBAI-400058 (COVER NOTE 0000655193 VALID FROM 12-05-2011 TO 11-05-2012)

¶13

... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI H N KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/C/O DT.21.07.2015)

¶15

¶16

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.09.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.2065/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE FTC AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HASSAN AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 03.09.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.2065/2011 on the file of the FTC and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan (‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶21

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that he met with an accident on 06.01.2011 and sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was shifted to CSI hospital, Hassan and thereafter he took treatment as an inpatient for a period of 20 days and as a result of injuries, he has sustained permanent disability and he was an agriculturist and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimant in order to

¶22

¶23

substantiate his contention, he examined himself as PW1 and the doctor as CW1 through Court Commissioner and the got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P12 and the Tribunal after considering both the oral and documentary evidence, awarded the compensation of Rs.6,69,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the claimant.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the claimant would submit that the claimant has suffered the permanent disability and the Tribunal also assessed the permanent disability of 100% but awarded an amount of Rs.6,24,000/- under the head of ‘loss of future income’ by taking the income of Rs.4,000/- per month and when the doctor has assessed the disability of 80% to the whole body, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and agony of Rs.30,000/- is very meager hence, the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation thus, it requires interference of this Court.

¶25

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 would submit that Ex.P5-wound certificate discloses that he has sustained compression fracture T12

¶26

¶27

vertebra and Tribunal after considering the evidence of doctor, rightly assessed the disability and it does not require any interference and no document is placed before the Court in respect of his income, hence, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of Rs.4,000/- thus, it does not require any interference by this Court.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the the material available on record particularly, the document at Ex.P5 which discloses that he had suffered compression fracture T12 vertebra and the doctor has been examined as PW2 through Court Commissioner who assessed the disability of 80% to the whole body and the Tribunal also assessed the permanent disability of 100% as he was unable to move with both lower limbs and it is a case of paraplegia and the doctor who has been examined as PW2 also in his evidence stated that x-ray shows compression fracture T12 Vertebra and the injured is a total paraplegia patient and not able to get up or move both legs and he was an inpatient from 06.11.2011 to 18.11.2011 and assessed the disability of 80%.

¶29

¶30

Having taken note of the material available on

¶31

record, the Tribunal has not committed any error in taking the functional disability of 100% however, it failed to take note of the year of the accident thus, the notional income for the year 2011 would be Rs.6,500/- instead of Rs.4,000/- and the same requires interference.

¶32

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/towards pain and agony and it is a case of paraplegia of 100% disability hence, it requires to be enhanced and the same is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- as against Rs.30,000/-.

¶33

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/towards medical expenses which included attendant charges and he was an inpatient for a period of 13 days and it does not require any interference.

¶34

Loss of income was assessed at 100% disability and in a case of 100% disability, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ERUDHAYA PRIAYA vs STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED reported in 2020 SCC ONLINE 601, future prospectus has to be added and the

¶35

¶36

claimant was aged about 46 years at the time of the accident, hence, 25% has to be added as future prospectus for an amount of Rs.6,500/- and after adding future prospectus of 25%, it comes to Rs.8,125/- as months income and the relevant multiplier would be 13 hence, it comes to Rs.12,67,500/(8,125/- x 12 x 13) towards ‘loss of dependency’.

¶37

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/on the head of ‘unhappiness’ and when the injured was aged about 46 years at the time of accident with 100% disability, the Tribunal ought to have awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as against Rs.5,000/- on the head of ‘unhappiness’.

¶38

The Tribunal has not awarded an amount towards ‘loss of income during the laid up period’. Having considered the nature of the injuries, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.26,000/- (6,500 x 4) on the head of ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶39

The learned counsel for the claimant has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 08.07.2019 passed in MFA 6200/2018 wherein in a case of 100% functional

¶40

¶41

disability, awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards attendant charges and in the case on hand also, it is a case of paraplegia and he was not able to move with both the legs. Hence, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on

¶42

the head of ‘future attendant charges’. Hence, in all, the claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.17,03,500/- as against Rs.6,69,000/-.

¶43

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶44

following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶47

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 03.09.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.2065/2011 is modified granting compensation of Rs.17,03,500/- as against Rs.6,69,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶48

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Chikkanna @ Chikkegowda v. Venkategowda B R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chikkanna @ Chikkegowda v. Venkategowda B R

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

The Reliance General Ins. Co.Ltd, Vs Raju

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Shri N Ramachandra

The Regional Manager Vs Master Tharun C Gowda

Sri Ramesh G Vs Sri Rajanna

Sri Lakshmi Sagar Vs Sri Ninge Gowda a B

Sri. Chandrappa Vs the Managing Director