Partly allowed

Hanumappa @ Hanumanna @ Hanumanthappa v. Universal Sompo General Insu.Co Ltd.

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2022MFA/5088/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Vehicles Appeal in part, modifying the Tribunal's award by increasing compensation from Rs.45,800 to Rs.99,800 for pain and suffering, treatment, loss of amenity, etc., based on updated medical findings regarding rib and zygomatic fractures, directing the insurer to pay within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award is modified to grant compensation of Rs.99,800 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. The Insurance Company is directed to pay within six weeks.

Hanumappa @ Hanumanna @ Hanumanthappa Vs Universal… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

M.F.A.No.5088/2014 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

HANUMAPPA @ HANUMANNA @ HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O DODDASIDDAVVANAHALLI CHITRADURGA-577501

¶8

...APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSU. CO LTD BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER KVB TOWERS, 2^ND FLOOR, 7/3 OLD MADRAS ROAD, OPP. 100FT ROAD INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE-560038

¶12

ZIAULLA S/O KARREEMKHAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OWNER OF LORRY NO.KA-52-5226 R/O NO.49, BASAVANAHALLI RENUKANAGARA, NELAMANGALA BANGALORE (R) DIST.562123

¶13

... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI H N KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DT.20.01.2015, NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)

¶15

¶16

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.04.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.223/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM AND MACT-III, CHITRADURGA AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 21.04.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.223/2013 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, C.J.M and MACT-III, Chitradurga (‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

¶21

The Tribunal considered the document at Ex.P5 wherein

¶22

it is mentioned that there was tenderness over right side of the chest and right black eye and the appellant was an inpatient for a period of 3 days but there was no fractured injuries and also considered the document at Ex.P31-Inpatient Case Record of City Central Hospital Private Limited, Davanagere, wherein it is mentioned that the appellant was admitted to the hospital on

¶23

¶24

17.01.2013 and discharged on 20.01.2013 i.e., 4 days and he was aged about 65 years and it is also mentioned that the closed head injury with concussion, right zygomatic fracture, right sided multiple rib fracture.

¶25

On perusal of the referral card as well as discharge summary it is clear that the appellant has suffered the fracture of zygomatic fracture as well as head injury and apart from that he had suffered 5 fractures but the Tribunal has failed to take note of this document and only referred document at Ex.P5 and failed to consider the report i.e., CT scan report which is available at page 86 of the Trial Court record wherein it is mentioned that right zygomatico-maxillary complex fracture with right maxillary hemosinus. Hence, it is clear that complex fracture involving body of zygoma, zygomatic arch, anterior. When such being the case, though he was an inpatient for 4 days, he was treated conservatively and the Tribunal lost its sight particularly to the case sheet and the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant. Hence, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.50,000/- as against Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferings and the Tribunal has awarded an amount of

¶26

¶27

Rs.11,800/- towards treatment expenses and the same is based on the documentary evidence hence, it does not required any interference. The Tribunal has awarded an amount Rs.5,000/towards loss of income during treatment and laid up period but it was the accident of the year 2013 and notional income would be Rs.8,000/- and having considered that he had suffered rib fractures as well as zygomatic fractures, he requires minimum 3 months rest to reunite the said fractures hence, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.24,000/- (8,000 x 3) as against Rs.5,000/- and the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.4,000/- towards conveyance and incidental charges and the same is just and reasonable since he was an inpatient for a period of 4 days. The doctor has not been examined with regard to proving of disability and having considered the fracture of rib as well as zygomatic fracture which will not leads to any disability hence, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- on the head of loss of amenities and in all, the appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.99,800/-.

¶28

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶29

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶32

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 21.04.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.223/2013 is modified granting compensation of Rs.99,800/as against Rs.45,800/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

SN

Hanumappa @ Hanumanna @ Hanumanthappa v. Universal Sompo General Insu.Co Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumappa @ Hanumanna @ Hanumanthappa v. Universal Sompo General Insu.Co Ltd.

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

Geetha Vs K Annappaswamy

Sri Kiran Kumar J.S. @ Kiran Vs Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

The Managing Director Vs Kumari Varshitha P

Smt Sannamma Vs Sri Kiran Kumar @ Kiran

Puttandamma Vs Murugesh N

R Mohamed Gouspeer Vs M Vishvanth