Partly allowed

Sri Nandishappa v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2022MFA/4604/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident appeal, the High Court enhanced compensation from Rs.1,33,817 to Rs.3,50,177 for the claimant, a former security guard, by revising heads for pain and suffering, loss of future earnings, conveyance, loss of amenities, and lost income, rejecting the Tribunal's lower assessment.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and award modified; enhanced compensation of Rs.2,16,360 awarded with interest @ 6% p.a.; total compensation fixed at Rs.3,50,177.

Sri Nandishappa Vs the Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶5

M.F.A.No.4604/2018 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI NANDISHAPPA S/O SRI.MARIYAPPA, OCC:SECURITY, R/AT 20, RABBANAHALLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. … APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI SURESH M LATUR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, KH ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶11

… RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI S.THAVARESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16/01/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.2526/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XIX ACMM., MEMBER, MACT, (SCCH-23), BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act' for short), challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.2526/2017 dated 16.01.2018 by the Court of XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT (SCCH-23), Bengaluru seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶18

The undisputed facts are that the claimant has sustained injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 28.03.2017 at about 6.30 p.m., at the place of Kote Circle, Linganahalli Road when KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-40-F-200 dashed against the motorcycle bearing No.KA-09-EF-2597 in which the claimant was driving. Therefore, the claimant has filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation.

¶19

¶20

The Tribunal after considering the facts and

¶21

circumstances and appreciating the material on record, has granted a compensation of Rs.1,33,817/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

¶22

Being aggrieved by the lesser quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager one and prays for enhancement of compensation.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶25

The Tribunal has granted the compensation under various heads as follows:

¶26

¶27

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount (in.Rs.)
1.	Pain and suffering including mental agony	40,000.00
2.	Loss of future earnings	59,400.00
3.	Medical expenses	29,417.00
4.	Conveyance, nourishment and nutritious food	5,000.00
	Total	1,33,817.00

¶28

The wound certificate, other documentary

¶29

medical evidence and evidence of PW.3-Doctor stated that the claimant had suffered fracture base of 4th and 5th metatarsal (right) foot and fracture neck of fibula (right) leg. The said injuries are grievous in nature. The claimant was working as a Security Guard. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries sustained as above stated, the compensation of Rs.40,000/- awarded under the head 'pain and sufferings including mental agony' is on the lesser side. Therefore, the same may be enhanced to Rs.60,000/-.

¶30

The Tribunal has committed an error in

¶31

awarding lesser quantum of compensation under the head loss of future earnings due to disability. It is stated

¶32

¶33

that the claimant was working as a Security Guard and the claimant is not able to do work as a Security Guard as he was terminated from the services as per the submission of the claimant. Considering the nature of injuries sustained as above discussed, it is difficult for the claimant to do the work as Security Guard. The doctor has assessed 26% of permanent physical disability towards right lower limb and 13% disability towards whole body. But, the Tribunal has considered only 5% of permanent physical disability which is on lesser side as without any base. Where the doctor who is an expert has opined considering the injuries sustained and assessed disability and in contra to said opinion, the Tribunal has committed an error in taking only 5% of disability. Therefore, what the doctor has told as 13% to the whole body that is to be considered as it is assessed by the medical expert. According to the notional income recognized by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and according to the date of accident, the notional

¶34

¶35

income would be taken as Rs.11,000/- p.m. The claimant is 52 years. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier applicable is '11'. Hence. the 'loss of future earning due to disability' is hereby reassessed and quantified as under:

¶36

Rs.11,000 x 13% x 11 x 12 = Rs.1,88,760/-

¶37

Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,88,760/- is

¶38

awarded under the head 'loss of future earnings due to disability'.

¶39

The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.29,417/- under the head medical expenses. The same is as per the actual medical bills produced by the claimant, which needs no interference.

¶40

The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.5,000/-

¶41

towards 'conveyance, nourishment and nutritious food' which is on the lesser side. The same is enhanced to

¶42

Rs.15,000/-.

¶43

¶44

The Tribunal has not awarded the

¶45

compensation under the heads 'loss of amenities' and 'loss of income during laid up period'. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.35,000/- under the head 'loss of amenities' and loss of income at least for a period of two months is calculated. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.22,000/- is awarded under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.

¶46

Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for the

¶47

following sums:

¶48

Sl.No.	Particulars	Compensation awarded (in Rs.)
1.	Pain and sufferings including mental agony	60,000.00
2.	Loss of future earnings	1,88,760.00
3.	Medical expenses	29,417.00
4.	Conveyance, nourishment and nutritious food	15,000.00
5.	Loss of amenities	35,000.00
6.	Loss of income during laid up period	22,000.00
	TOTAL	3,50,177.00

¶49

The Tribunal has awarded the compensation

¶50

of Rs.1,33,817/-, but the appellant/claimant is entitled

¶51

¶52

to total compensation of Rs.3,50,177/- . Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.2,16,360/- (Rs.3,50,177-Rs.1,33,817).

¶53

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶56

ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.2526/2017 is hereby modified holding the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.2,16,360/- with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

¶57

iii. The appellant/claimant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 36 days in filing the appeal.

¶58

iv. Costs made easy.

¶59

v. Ordered accordingly.

¶60

vi. The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal along with TCR, forthwith.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

JUDGE

¶63

Sri Nandishappa v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nandishappa v. the Managing Director

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 Thimmarayappa Vs United India Ins. Co. Ltd.

Sri Mallappa @ Mallaiah Vs Sri Srikanth K N

Mr Badrudin Saheb Vs Mr Pradeep Kumar M T

Smt. S S Sudha Vs the Managing Director

Sri. Muneer Ahmed Khan Vs Sri. Mudasir @ Mudasir Khan

The Managing Director Vs Smt S S Sudha