Partly allowed

Sri. Manohar Poojary v. Sri. Karunakara

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2022MFA/4761/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal for enhancement of compensation in a motor vehicle accident case, the Court examined the Tribunal's award. While most heads of compensation were affirmed, the Court enhanced the award for loss of future earning capacity and corrected the calculation for the laid-up period based on revised notional income.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,61,527/- (from Rs. 4,47,887/-) awarded with interest at 6% p.a.

Sri. Manohar Poojary Vs Sri. Karunakara — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

M.F.A.NO.4761/2018 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MANOHAR POOJARY, S/O RAGHURAMA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O SULKANBETTU, HATTIKUDHRU, BASRUR VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK – 576 3201

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI KARUNAKARA, S/O BABU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O H.No.1-23, BASRUR VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK – 576 201

¶13

IFFCO TOKIYO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE: MANGALORE, 3^RD FLOOR, LALBHAG TOWER, BALLALBHAG, M.G.ROAD, MANGALORE – 575 001 REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS (SRI. R.SRINIVASAGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE COURT ORDER DTD: 21.02.2018, R1 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

¶15

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.02.2018, PASSED BY MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, UDUPI (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA) KUNDAPURA, IN MVC No.1127/2016 AND AWARD JUST AND REASONABLE COMPENSATION CONSIDERING THE GRAVITY OF THE INJURY, PERMANENT DISABILITIES AND OTHER SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶17

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

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

This is Claimant’s appeal for enhancement.

¶20

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

¶21

Claimant has filed this appeal seeking

¶22

enhancement contending that the compensation granted is highly insufficient inadequate and disproportionate and as such claimant is entitled for enhancement. The

¶23

¶24

compensation granted under various heads is on the lower side.

¶25

It is the case of the claimant that on 28.04.2016 at 6.30 p.m. petitioner was travelling as pillion rider in motor cycle bearing registration No.KA 20 ED 3580 from Sharke side towards Vandse side. The rider of the motor cycle drove it in a rash or negligent manner and near Nujadi Cross, Vandse Village, the rider lost control as a result of which they fell on the road resulting in claimant sustaining injuries and permanent partial disability.

¶26

Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 has

¶27

remained absent.

¶28

Respondent No.2 has appeared and filed written statement denying the mode of accident, age, avocation income, avocation of the claimant, nature of the injury sustained, medical expenses incurred. Though admitted the coverage of the vehicle, respondent No.2 has contended

¶29

¶30

that its liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy.

¶31

7. During enquiry claimant has examined himself as PW-1, the Doctor as PW-2 and relied upon Ex.P1 to 12.

¶32

Respondent No.2 has not led oral evidence, but

¶33

got marked the insurance policy as Ex.R1.

¶34

Vide impugned judgment and award, the

¶35

Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and granted

¶36

compensation in a sum of Rs.4,47,887/- as detailed below:

¶37

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Injury, pain and suffering	55,000/-
Medical expenses	65,267/-
Loss of earning during treatment00	3,900/-
Loss of bed rest	63,000/-
Loss of future earning capacity	2,52,720/-
Conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges	8,000/-
TOTAL	4,47,887/-

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

Loss of future earning: The incident has taken place on 28.04.2016. At the time of accident, claimant was aged 21 years. He has suffered (i) Comminuted fracture patella left; (ii) Swollen neck; (iii) Tenderness per abdomen and (iv) Swelling left side head injuries. Though claimant claims that he was doing centering work and earning Rs.20,000/- p.m, no evidence is placed on record to prove the same. The Tribunal has taken his income on notional basis as Rs.9,000/- p.m. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which is based on minimum wages, during the year 2016 the notional income has to be taken at Rs.9,500/-. As per the medical evidence, the claimant has sustained disability of 26% of left lower limb. The Tribunal has taken the whole body disability as 13%. Since respondent No.2 has not challenged the same, this Court has taken the whole body disability as 13%.

¶41

¶42

Since the claimant was aged 21 years, 18 multiplier taken by the Tribunal is correct. Therefore the loss of earning due to permanent partial disability is 9,500 x 12 x 13% x 18 = 2,66,760/- Thus under the head loss of future earnings, the claimant is entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.2,66,760/- instead of 2,52,720/-.

¶43

Compensation for laid up period: The Tribunal has granted compensation for laid up period in a sum of Rs.63,000/- at the rate of Rs.9,000/- for a period of 7 months. Since the income is taken 9,500/- for a period of 7 months, the compensation works out to Rs.66,500/- instead of Rs.63,000/-. The Tribunal has also granted compensation in a sum of Rs.3,900/- under the head loss of earning during treatment period. Since, compensation is granted under the head loss of earning during laid up period, there is no necessity to grant compensation under the head loss of earning during treatment period and the same is disallowed.

¶44

¶45

Medical expenses: Based on medical bills, the

¶46

Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.65,267/- and therefore it requires no interference.

¶47

Pain and suffering: Having regard to the nature of the injury sustained, treatment taken the Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.55,000/- under the head pain and suffering. It reasonable and adequate and as such requires no interference.

¶48

Food, Nourishment and Conveyance: The Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.8,000/- under the head Conveyance, nourishment and it is reasonable and adequate and it requires no interference.

¶49

Thus, in all claimant is entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.4,61,527 as against Rs.4,47,887/- granted by the Tribunal as detailed below.

¶50

¶51

Heads	Amount granted by the Tribunal In Rs.	Amount granted by this Court In Rs.
Injury, pain and suffering	55,000-00	55,000-00
Medical expenses	65,267-00	65,267-00
Loss of earning during treatment	3,900-00	-
Loss of bed rest	63,000-00	66,500-00 (Loss of earning during laid up period)
Loss of future earning capacity	2,52,720-00	2,66,760-00
Conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges	8,000-00	8,000-00
TOTAL	4,47,887-00	4,61,527-00

¶52

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

¶53

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(i) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶56

(ii) Appellant/claimant is entitled for compensation in

¶57

a sum of Rs.4,61,527/- as against Rs.4,47,887/-

¶58

granted by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% p.a.

¶59

¶60

from the date of petition till realization (minus the amount already paid/deposited)

¶61

(iii) The respondent No.2 Insurance company shall

¶62

deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

Sri. Manohar Poojary v. Sri. Karunakara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Manohar Poojary v. Sri. Karunakara

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

The Branch Managaer Vs Kusuma W/O Bhagwan Salunke

The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Satappa S/O Dareppa Patil @ Biradar and Anr.

Kusuma W/O Bhagwan Salunke Vs the Branch Manager

Sri Hanumappa Vs Sri Mansoor Ali

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Susheela Devadiga

Smt Susheelamma Vs Sri a v Krishna Kumar Reddy