Partly allowed

Sri Shreyas v. Sri Satappa

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2022MFA/4187/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident compensation appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to a minor child injured in a road traffic accident. The Court quashed part of the Tribunal's award, increasing compensation for inconvenience to parents and medical attendant charges, while leaving pain and suffering and medical expenses unchanged, granting a total of Rs. 2,00,500 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly allowed. Compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,00,500 with interest at 6% p.a., to be deposited by Respondent No.3 within six weeks.

Sri Shreyas Vs Sri Satappa — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

M.F.A.NO.4187/2014 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SHREYAS S/O SHRINIVAS KALAL AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS FROM 13.07.2014 OCC: STUDENT ADVOCATE R/O “SRI LAXMI NIVAS” BEHIND RAILWAY STATION HARIHAR-477 602 DISTRICT: DAVANAGERE AGE OF APPELLANT AT TIME OF INQUIRY: 14 YEARS

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. G.J. SUNKAPUR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . SRI SATAPPA S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS OCC: DRIVER OF THE CAR REG.NO.DL.2C.AG.7137 D.L.NO.27770 FROM 09.02.2009 TO 08.02.2012 R/O AMMINABHAVI VILLAGE TALUK: HUKKERI DISTRICT: BELGAUM

¶13

¶14

2 . M/S. DVS INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD OWNER OF THE CAR DL.2C.AG.7137 NO.41, M.M.ROAD RANI JHANSI MARGA NEW DELHI-110 033

¶15

IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. A/2 1^ST FLOOR, RELIANCE HOUSE ISIDORIO BAPTIST ROAD MARGA GOA-403801 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DAVANAGERE A/2 1^ST FLOOR, RELIANCE HOUSE INSURANCE VALID FROM 14.04.2009 TO 13.04.2015

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 05.06.2015 NOTICE TO R1 & R2 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

¶18

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.01.2014 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL & THE ADDL.MACT, HARIHAR IN MVC NO.204/2010, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE QUANTUM OF COMPENSTION AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND ENHANCE THE SAME TO THE EXTENT CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE CLAIM PETITION, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Though this appeal is posted for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties the same is taken up for final disposal.

¶22

¶23

This is petitioner’s appeal for enhancement of compensation granted for the personal injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident dated 22.02.2010 involving car bearing registration No. DL-2C-AG-7137 (herein after referred to as offending vehicle), belonging to respondent No.2 company and insured with respondent No.3.

¶24

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

¶25

Facts: It is the case of the petitioner that on 22.02.2010 he along with his family members was traveling in the offending vehicle. It was driven by respondent No.1 in a rash or negligent manner. At 7.30 a.m. near Emmetti, village of Chitradurga District, respondent No.1 hit the car to a Lorry which was proceeding in the front, as a result of which petitioner sustained grievous injuries.

¶26

Respondent No.2 has filed objections denying the petition averments. However, he has contended that at

¶27

¶28

the time of alleged accident, the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.3 and respondent No.1 was having valid driving license and as such respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation.

¶29

Respondent No.3 has filed objections admitting the coverage of the offending vehicle, but as the offending vehicle is a private car and the policy is in respect of private car and since respondent No.2 has used the same as a taxi for carrying passengers there is violation of conditions of the policy. The driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license and prays to dismiss the petition against it.

¶30

Since in the said accident number of persons were injured and there was also one death, all the petitions arising out of the said accident were clubbed together and common evidence was led. During enquiry on behalf of petitioners, in all 8 witnesses were examined as PWs-1 to 8 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P74 are marked.

¶31

¶32

On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence is led, but Ex.R1 to 6 were marked.

¶33

Vide impugned judgment and award, the

¶34

Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and granted compensation in a sum of Rs.1,70,454/- and directed

¶35

respondent No.3 to pay the same, as detailed below:

¶36

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Pain and Suffering	1,00,000
Inconvenience to the parents	15,000
Medical expenses	45,454
Medical attendant charges and Nourishment	10,000
TOTAL	1,70,454

¶37

The respondent No.3 Insurance company has not

¶38

challenged the impugned judgment and award.

¶39

Thus, petitioner is seeking enhancement contending that the compensation granted is on the lower side and the Tribunal should have taken the disability as 20% of the whole body and notional income at Rs.5000/-

¶40

¶41

for calculating future loss of income. The compensation granted under all the heads requires enhancement.

¶42

On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No.2 argued that at the time of accident petitioner was aged 14 years and a non-earning person. Since, the disability calculated is 20% of the concerned limb, the whole body disability should have been taken as 1/3^rd of it which may be around 7%. However, the Tribunal has taken the disability of whole body at 10%. Since, the petitioner was a child and a non-earning person the notional income is to be confined to Rs.15,000/- p.a. Therefore, the compensation granted is not only just and proper, but on the higher side. At the most global compensation in sum of Rs.30,000/- may be granted in addition to what is already granted by the Tribunal.

¶43

In view of the specific contentions raised by the petitioner it has become necessary to examine whether the

¶44

¶45

compensation granted is just and reasonable or whether it is a fit case for interference by this Court.

¶46

Pain and sufferings already undergone and to be

¶47

suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience and discomforts, etc. and loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability: Before adverting to the nature of the injury sustained resulting in the disability it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2014) 14 SCC 396¹ (Mallikarjun’s case), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with death or personal injury of a child in a motor vehicle accident held that ” in case of accident of child resulting in disability, it would be unfair and improper to follow structured formula as per the Second Schedule. The main stress in structured formula is on pecuniary damages. For children, there is no income. A child cannot be equated to a non earning person as done in the Second Schedule taking

¶48

1 Mallikarjun vs Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another

¶49

¶50

notional income as 15,000/per year. Therefore, compensation is to be worked out under non-pecuniary head in addition to actual amount incurred for treatment done/or to be done, transportation, assistance of attendant, etc.”. It further held that ”in addition to treatment, attendant, etc., the following compensation is to be granted for disability of whole body(unless there are exceptional

¶51

circumstances to take a different yardstick):

¶52

Upto 10%	-	1,00,000/-
10-30%	-	3,00,000/--
Upto 60%	-	4,00,000/-
Upto 90%	-	6,00,000/-

¶53

In Mallikarjun’s case referred to supra, having

¶54

regard to the fact that the petitioner therein had suffered whole body disability of 18%, the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted compensation in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under the

¶55

head pain and sufferings already undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience and discomforts, etc. and loss of amenitites in life on account of permanent disability.

¶56

¶57

Admittedly, as on the date of accident petitioner was a child aged 14 years. Therefore, the compensation is to be calculated as per the decision in Mallikarjun’s case referred to supra. As per the wound certificate, the petitioner has sustained fracture of left humorous and other injuries PW-6 Doctor Anil S Nelevigi has deposed that petitioner has suffered 20% disability of the left upper limb. As per Rajkumar’s case 1/3^rd of which comes to about 7% and therefore, 7% should have been taken as whole body disability. However, the Tribunal has taken the whole body disability as 10% which is on the higher side. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the whole body disability is to be taken at 20% cannot be accepted. Based on the disability suffered by the petitioner and relying upon Mallikarjun’s case referred to supra the Tribunal has rightly granted compensation in a sum of Rs.,1,00,000/and it calls for no interference.

¶58

¶59

Inconvenience to the parents: The Tribunal has granted compensation of sum of Rs.15,000/- under this head. Having regard to the nature of the injury sustained, the disability suffered by the petitioner and period of treatment, I hold that it is on the lower side and it would be just and proper to grant additional sum of Rs.15,000/making the compensation under this head as Rs.30,000/as against Rs.15,000/- granted by the Tribunal.

¶60

Medical expenses: Based on the medical bills, the Tribunal has rightly granted compensation in a sum of Rs.45,454/- and I find no reason to interfere the same.

¶61

Medical attendant charges and nourishment: The

¶62

Tribunal has granted compensation of sum of Rs.10,000/under this head. Having regard to the nature of the injury sustained, the disability suffered by the petitioner and period of treatment, I hold that it is on the lower side and it would be just and proper to grant additional sum of Rs.15,000/- making the compensation under this head as

¶63

¶64

Rs.25,000/- as against Rs.10,000/granted by the Tribunal.

¶65

Thus in all petitioners are entitled for

¶66

compensation in a sum of Rs.2,00,454/- rounded off to Rs.2,00,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. as against Rs.1,70,454/- granted by the Tribunal as detailed below:

¶67

Heads	Amount granted by the Tribunal In Rs.	Amount granted by this Court In Rs.
Pain and sufferings already undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience and discomforts, etc. and loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability	1,00,000 (Pain and suffering)	1,00,000
Inconvenience to the parents	15,000	30,000
Medical expenses	45,454	45,454
Medical attendant charges and nourishment	10,000	25,000
TOTAL	1,70,454	2,00,454
Round	ed off to 2,00,500	/-

¶68

¶69

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

(i) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶72

(ii) Appellant/petitioner is entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs. 2,00,500/as against Rs.1,70,454/- granted by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization (minus the amount already paid/deposited)

¶73

(iii) The respondent No.3 Insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

Sri Shreyas v. Sri Satappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shreyas v. Sri Satappa

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

Mr Koragappa Pooojary Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Syed Mushraf Vs Vasanth Kumar B R

The Divisional Manager Vs Mr. Koragappa Poojary

Smt. Mangallamma Vs the Managing Director

Nagaraju Vs the Managing Director

The State through Adarsh Nagar Police Station Vs Akalak Ahamed S/O Allabax Mulla and Ors.