Partly allowed

S Supriya v. C Venugopal

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2022MFA/5001/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Motor Accident Claim appeal where the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Court accepted medical evidence showing 18% disability instead of the Tribunal's assessment and enhanced compensation from Rs.4.15 lakhs to Rs.7.05 lakhs, adjusting income and loss of amenities heads.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment was modified; compensation was enhanced from Rs.4,15,006/- to Rs.7,05,046/- with interest.

S Supriya Vs C Venugopal — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

M.F.A.NO.5001/2017 (MV-I)

¶7

C/W. M.F.A.NO.262/2017 (MV-I)

¶8

IN M.F.A.NO.5001/2017:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

S. SUPRIYA D/O. SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO.473, YAMARE EXTENSION DOMMASANDRA, SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN.

¶11

… APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI JAGADISH G. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE SRI SREENIVASAIAH A., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . C. VENUGOPAL S/O N.S. CHOLARAJU NO.324, 2^ND CROSS, 2^ND MAIN RAMAPURA VILLAGE, JIGANI, ANEKAL BENGALURU URBAN.

¶15

2 . THE MANAGER

¶16

TATA AIG GEN. INS. CO. LTD., 2^ND FLOOR, JP & DEVI JAMBUKESWAR ARCADE NO.69, MILLERS ROAD BENGALURU-560052. ... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.11.2018, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶18

¶19

THIS M.F.A., IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 10.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.985/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM, M.A.C.T., BENGALURU(SCCH.13), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

IN M.F.A.NO.262/2017:

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

M/s. TATA AIG G.I.C., LTD., NO.69, 2^ND FLOOR JP & DEVI JAMBUKESWAR ARCADE MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052 REPRESENTED BY ZONAL CLAIMS MANAGER. … APPELLANT

¶23

(BY SRI RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

1 . SMT. S. SUPRIYA W/O SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS NO.473, YAMARE EXTENSION DOMMASANDRA SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN-562 106.

¶26

1 . C. VENUGOPAL

¶27

S/O N.S. CHOLARAJU NO.324, 2^ND CROSS, 2^ND MAIN RAMAPURA VILLAGE, JIGANI, ANEKAL BENGALURU URBAN-562 106. ... RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI JAGADISH G. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SREENIVASAIAH A., ADVOCATE FOR R1 VIDE ORDER DATED 07.06.2018, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶29

¶30

THIS M.F.A., IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 10.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.985/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM, M.A.C.T., BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.4,15,006/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN COURT.

¶31

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

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Though these matters are listed for admission today, with the consent of both the learned counsel it is taken up for final disposal.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimant

¶35

and the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.

¶36

These two appeals are filed by the claimant as well as the Insurance Company, respectively, challenging the judgment and award dated 10.11.2016, passed in M.V.C.No.985/2015 on the file of the II Additional Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru (‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶37

The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

¶38

¶39

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that the claimant was working as Assistant Professor at Oxford College and getting a salary of Rs.20,000/per month. Due to the accident, she has suffered the fracture of distal end of radius with dorsal displacement of left wrist, fracture of right radius and tibia condyle left knee fracture and also the head injury, resulting in a permanent disability.

¶40

The claimant in order to substantiate her case, she has examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined the Doctor as P.W.2, who assessed the disability of 18% to the whole body and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P20. On the other hand, the respondents have examined two witnesses as R.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R8.

¶41

The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, taken the disability of 9% and awarded compensation of Rs.4,15,006/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Hence, the present appeals are filed by the claimant as well as the Insurance Company, respectively.

¶42

¶43

The main contention of the learned counsel

¶44

appearing for the claimant before this Court is that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the disability of 9% in a case of three fractures i.e., fracture of distal end of radius with dorsal displacement of left wrist, fracture of right radius and tibia condyle left knee fracture and the head injury and also she was subjected to surgery. The Tribunal taken the income of Rs.10,000/- per month, which is on lesser side, since she being the Master Degree Graduate and working as Assistant Professor and drawing salary of Rs.20,000/- per month and the compensation awarded on other the heads are also very meager. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court.

¶45

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding an amount of Rs.75,000/- on the head of pain and sufferings. The Tribunal also committed an error in taking the income of Rs.10,000/- per month since no document has been placed before the Court to support the same and awarded an amount of Rs.1,83,600/- on the head of loss of future earnings due to disability and also awarded an amount of

¶46

¶47

Rs.30,000/- on the head of loss of earning during the laid-up period. Hence, the very compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court.

¶48

Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:

¶49

(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the just and reasonable compensation as contended by the claimant?

¶50

(ii) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding the exorbitant compensation as contended by the Insurance Company?

¶51

(iii) What order?

¶52

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):

¶53

Having considered the grounds urged in both the appeals and the material available on record, the claimant in order to substantiate the contention examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P20. Out of that Ex.P5-Wound Certificate discloses the fracture of distal end of radius with dorsal displacement of left wrist, fracture of right radius and tibia condyle left knee fracture and also the head

¶54

¶55

injury. The injured was an inpatient for a period of five days and subjected to surgery and also to removal of implants. Ex.P6, Two Discharge Summaries are produced, which disclose that she was an inpatient for a period of five days. Apart from that, the claimant also produced the documents – Exs.P14 to P20 with regard to her qualification and academic marks cards viz., SSLC and PUC marks card, the Provisional Certificate, Bachelor Degree Certificate, Master Degree Certificate and also the Certificate issued by Science Technology and Productization and work shop participation. The Tribunal having considered the material on record, taken the income of Rs.10,000/- per month since the claimant has not produced any document for having received the salary of Rs.20,000/- as claimed by the claimant in order to show that she was working as Assistant Professor. However, the notional income would be Rs.9,000/- in a case of the accident of the year 2015 even for a coolie. When such being the case, the income taken as Rs.10,000/- is on little lesser side in a case of Master Degree holder. Hence, it is appropriate to take the income of Rs.12,000/- per month. The Doctor has assessed the disability of 18% to the whole body in respect of the fracture of both the left radius and right radius and also tibial injury. The

¶56

¶57

material also discloses that she was subjected to surgery in respect of the tibia fracture and also implants were removed in respect of the tibia fracture. Having taken note of the disability assessed, both the upper arms and lower limb, the disability assessed by the Doctor is on lesser side i.e., 18%. However, no other material is placed before the Court with regard to the malunion and also the percentage of disability. Hence, it is appropriate to take the disability as assessed by the Doctor as 18% for calculating the loss of income.

¶58

Now, coming to the aspect of quantum of compensation is concerned; the injured was in the hospital only for a period of five days. No doubt, she suffers three fractures. The compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded on the head of pain and suffering appears to be on little higher side and the same is reduced to Rs.60,000/- on the head of pain and suffering.

¶59

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,23,406/-

¶60

towards medical expenses based on the documentary evidence. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation under this head.

¶61

¶62

The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/-

¶63

on the head of loss of earnings during the laid up period by taking the income of Rs.10,000/- per month for a period of three months, which is on lesser side. This Court after re-visiting, taken the income of Rs.12,000/- per month for a period of four months, it comes to Rs.48,000/- on this head.

¶64

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,83,600/- on the head of ‘Loss of future earnings due to disability’ considering the disability of 9%. This Court re-visited with regard to the disability is concerned. Having considered the fractures in respect both upper limb and lower limb, re-assessed the disability at 18% with relevant multiplier 17 since she was aged about 26 years and taken the income of Rs.12,000/- per month, it comes to Rs.4,40,640/- (12000x12x17x18/100).

¶65

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,000/- on

¶66

the head of Conveyance, Nourishment, food and attending charges, since she was an inpatient for a period of five days, which is just and proper and does not require any interference.

¶67

¶68

The Tribunal failed to award any compensation on

¶69

the head of ‘loss of amenities’. The claimant is aged about 26 years; she has to lead rest of her life with the disability of 18% to the whole body. Hence, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.30,000/- on the head of ‘loss of amenities’.

¶70

In all, the claimant/appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.7,05,046/- as against Rs.4,15,006/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶71

Point No.(iii):

¶72

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶73

following:

¶74

ORDER

¶75

(i) The appeals are allowed-in-part.

¶76

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 10.11.2016, passed in M.V.C.No.985/2015, is hereby modified granting compensation Rs.7,05,046/- as against Rs.4,15,006/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶77

¶78

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

¶79

(iv) The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶80

(v) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶81

Sd/JUDGE

¶82

cp*

S Supriya v. C Venugopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Supriya v. C Venugopal

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 Managing Director Vs B. Prabhuswamy @ Prabhu

The Divisional Controller Vs Puttaswamy

Mr. B.K.Ashraf Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Sri Shivalingam v Vs Sri N B Shivashankar

Smt.Manjamma Vs Muddaraju

Sri Chikkanna Vs N Prasanna