Allowed

Sri Somashekar v. Sri G Rajendran

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2022MFA/4886/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed motor accident claimant's appeal partially. Court enhanced compensation from Rs.2.06 lakhs to Rs.5.45 lakhs accordingly directed insurance company to pay the enhanced amount with interest due to proper assessment of minor's disability and treatment duration. (2022-10-10)

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment modified; compensation enhanced to Rs.5,45,000/- payable by insurance company within six weeks with 6% per annum interest.

Sri Somashekar Vs Sri G Rajendran — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

M.F.A.No.4886/2014 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SRI SOMASHEKAR S/O VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT BYATANUR VILLAGE MUSTUR POST, BYRAKUR HOBLI MULBAGUL TALUK NOW R/AT KATRIPALYA 1^ST MAIN, KOLAR CITY

¶8

...APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SMT. SUGUNA R REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

SRI G RAJENDRAN SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SRI CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE RAJENDRAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT KOMALAN KUTTAI PALLIKONDA, VELLORE TAMILNADU-635809

¶12

THE BRANCH MANAGER M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD. BRANCH OFFICE NO.35-1, MVT ROAD

¶13

¶14

GANDHI CHOWK, RONIPET NORTH ARCOT DISTRICT TAMILNADU-632401

¶15

... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI C SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R2 IS SERVED [THROUGH PH])

¶17

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.12.2013 PASSED IN MVC.NO.97/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIM TRIBUNAL, KOLAR AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 06.12.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.97/2010 on the file of the II Additional District Judge and Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Kolar (‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶21

This matter is listed for admission and with the consent of both the counsel appearing for the parties, taken up for final disposal.

¶22

¶23

The main contention of the claimant before the Tribunal

¶24

is that the injured was the minor who was aged about 14 years at the time of the accident and he met with an accident on 03.03.1996 and due to the said accident, he has suffered total nine injuries which have been narrated in the order of the Tribunal in paragraph 10 and in order to substantiate the nature of the injuries, the claimant has relied upon the evidence of the doctor who was examined as PW4 and he deposed before the Court that the injured has undergone for multiple surgery and wound debridement for right thigh injury and for which skin grafting was done and he has got deformity left lower limb at knee joint and also scar over the right thigh deficit of soft tissues and there is a back side bowing of right knee joint and the doctor has assessed 30% disability to the whole body and the same has been bifurcated as right lower limb disability at 20%, left lower limb disability at 50%, left upper limb disability at 20% and right upper limb disability at 10% and the Tribunal accepted the evidence of the doctor and considering 30% disability, awarded the compensation of Rs.2,06,000/-. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the claimant contending that the Tribunal has

¶25

¶26

failed to take note of the nature of the injuries and disability sustained by the injured and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meager.

¶27

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-insurance company submits that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation and the same does not require any interference.

¶28

In reply to the said arguments, the learned counsel

¶29

appearing for the appellant submits that the injured was an inpatient for a period of nine months and Ex.P10 discloses the same and he was subjected for almost 10 surgeries and the same has not taken note by the Tribunal.

¶30

Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel

¶31

appearing for the parties, the point that arise for the consideration of this Court is:

¶32

(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation and whether it requires interference?

¶33

(ii) What order?

¶34

¶35

Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel

¶36

appearing for the parties and on perusal of the material on record particularly, considering the document at Ex.P10 which discloses that the injured was an inpatient from 03.03.1996 to 10.09.1996 i.e., almost 6 months 1 week and it is a case of minor who had sustained several injuries and fractures and the doctor has assessed 30% disability to the whole body. However, the injuries are malunited. When such being the case, the Tribunal ought to have taken the said fact into consideration. Under the said circumstances, this Court would like to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MALLIKARJUN vs DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE

¶37

COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in (2014) 14 SCC 396 wherein the Apex Court categorically held that the Court has to award just and fair compensation and in a case of child sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident, it would be unfair and improper to follow the structured formula as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act for reasons more than one and also held that through it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children

¶38

¶39

suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and up to 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs; up to 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; up to 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakhs.

¶40

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M R KRISHNA MURTHI vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

¶41

AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2019 SC 5625 and in the said case the injured was aged about 18 years and he was pursuing 12^th standard at the time of the accident and loss of future earning fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month.

¶42

This Court also would like to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAJAL vs JAGDISH CHAND AND OTHERS reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 wherein the Apex Court in a case of injured who is aged about 12 years suffered

¶43

¶44

100% disability, taken the minimum wages of Rs.4,846/- to a skilled workman and added future prospects and awarded compensation.

¶45

In the case on hand, the injured had suffered 30% disability to the whole body and not 100% disability. When such being the case, this Court has to consider the MALLIKARJUN’s case (referred supra). Having taken note of the nature of the injuries and fractures are malunited and the doctor has assessed 30% disability to the whole body which is lesser side since the injured had suffered injuries on both right and left limb and apart from that both right and left upper limb hence, it is appropriate to award Rs.4,00,000/- towards loss of future income as against Rs.81,000/-. Apart from that the injured was in the hospital for a period of 6 months 1 week hence, the Court has to take note of the loss of income of the parents and also inconvenience caused to the parents during that period and also incurred other incidental expenses hence, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards Food, Nourishment and Conveyance as against Rs.30,000/-. The Tribunal has

¶46

¶47

awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards medial expenses which is based on the documents produced before the Tribunal hence, the same is unaltered. The Tribunal has separately awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards attendant charges and the same includes in the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. This Court has taken note of the fact that the injuries are malunited hence, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.20,000/towards future medical expenses for correction hence, in all, the appellant/claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,45,000/- as against Rs.2,06,000/-.

¶48

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶49

following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶52

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 06.12.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.97/2010 is modified granting compensation of Rs.5,45,000/- as against Rs.2,06,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶53

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

Sri Somashekar v. Sri G Rajendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Somashekar v. Sri G Rajendran

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

United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Susila W/O. Shamrao Patil

Smt.Mangalabai W/O Hanumanthasa Vs Saddam Hussain S/O Maiboobsab

Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd., Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Ajjagappa @ Ajjaganna Vs Ravishankar M J

Damayanthi P Shettigar Vs Mr Jayanth Kumar

Umesh. P. P. Vs State of Karnataka