Partly allowed

Sri. Shivanna v. Kantharaju

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2022MFA/5766/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside part of the Tribunal's judgment in a motor accident case. The Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 2,36,300 to Rs. 2,85,720 by increasing the payment for future earnings, lay-up period, and pain and suffering, and reduced the interest rate from 8% to 6% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,85,720 from Rs. 2,36,300; interest restricted to 6% p.a.

Sri. Shivanna Vs Kantharaju — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

M.F.A.NO.5766/2017 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SHIVANNA, S/O MALLANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O CHIKKA GOOLA VILLAGE, KASABA, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI K.N.SUNIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K.R.RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

KANTHARAJU, S/O JAVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶13

R/AT JAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, BRAHMASANDRA POST, SIRA TAUK,

¶14

TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101

¶15

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE: KASTHURI MANSION, M.G.ROAD, BEHIND KRISHNA TALKIES, ABOVE CORPORATION BANK, TUMKUR – 572 101

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

(SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

¶18

R1 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 6/1/2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, SIRA IN MVC NO.54/2015 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 28.02.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, J.M.KHAZI J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

This is an appeal by the petitioner seeking enhancement for the injuries and permanent partial disability sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident dated 23.06.2014.

¶24

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

¶25

Petitioner has filed this appeal seeking

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

granted under various heads is on the lower side and needs enhancement.

¶29

Facts:

¶30

It is the case of the petitioner that on

¶31

23.06.2014 at about 2.00 p.m. petitioner and another person were walking on the left side of the road near Basavanahalli gate on Sira - Mysuru Road, Bukkapatna Hobli, Sira Taluk. At that time rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA 64 E 5996 coming from Sira side dashed against the petitioner. As a result of the accident, he sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Sira and from there to Hemavathi Hospital, Tumakuru. He was in-patient for 15 days. Thereafter he took treatment as out patient and spent Rs.1,00,000/towards medical and other incidental charges. At the time of accident, petitioner was doing agricultural work and earning Rs.12,000/- p.m. Due to accidental injuries, his earning capacity is reduced.

¶32

¶33

Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 has

¶34

remained absent and as such he was placed Ex-parte..

¶35

Respondent No.2 has appeared and filed written

¶36

statement denying the fact of accident and petitioner sustaining injuries. The involvement of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA 64 E 5996 is denied. The age, avocation income, avocation of the petitioner, nature of the injury sustained, medical expenses incurred is also denied.

¶37

During enquiry petitioner has examined himself as PW-1, the Doctor as PW-2 and relied upon Ex.P1 to 13.

¶38

Respondent No.2 has not led oral evidence.

¶39

Vide impugned judgment and award, the

¶40

Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and granted compensation in a sum of Rs.2,36,300/- as detailed below:

¶41

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of future income	1,18,800
Pain and sufferings	25,000

¶42

¶43

Loss of income during	7,500
treatment
Medical, conveyance, Nutrition and Attendant charges	45,000
Loss of future happiness and amenities	20,000
Future medical expenses	20,000
TOTAL	2,36,300

¶44

The respondent No.2 Insurance company has not

¶45

challenged the impugned judgment and award.

¶46

Thus, petitioner is seeking enhancement

¶47

contending that the compensation granted is on the lower side and needs interference by this Court. Therefore, it has

¶48

become necessary to examine whether the compensation granted under various heads are just and proper or whether it is a case for interference.

¶49

Thus petitioner is seeking enhancement of the compensation contending that the compensation under various heads is not sufficient and requires interference.

¶50

¶51

The date of accident is 23.06.2014. At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged 55 years. Though he claims that he was earning Rs.12,000/- p.m., he has not produced any document to evidence the said fact. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which is based on minimum wages, during the year 2014 the notional income is required to be taken at Rs.8,000/-. Keeping this fact in mind let me examine whether the compensation granted under various heads requires interference.

¶52

Loss of future earnings: As per the medical evidence placed on record, including the testimony of PWs1 and 2, the petitioner has suffered permanent partial disability of 36% of the right lower limb. For whole body, the disability would come to 12%. Since the petitioner was aged 55 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier 11 taken by the Tribunal is correct. Therefore, compensation under head loss of income calculated at

¶53

¶54

Rs.1,18,800/- by the Tribunal is correct i.e., 8,000 x 12 x 11 x 12% = 1,26,720/- and it does not require any interference by this Court.

¶55

Compensation for laid up period: The Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.7,500/- taking the period of treatment as one month. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has suffered permanent partial disability and nature of the injury sustained by him, it would be appropriate if the laid up period is treated as 3 months. At the rate of Rs.8,000/-, the petitioner is entitled for compensation in sum of Rs.24,000/- as against Rs.7,500/- by the Tribunal.

¶56

Medical, Conveyance, Nutrition and Attendant charges: Based on the medical bills as well as the evidence placed on record, the Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.45,000/- under this head. Since, the Tribunal has taken laid up period for only one month and this Court has treated the laid up period as 3 months, it would be

¶57

¶58

appropriate if compensation under this head to Rs.50,000/as against Rs.45,000/- by the Tribunal.

¶59

Pain and suffering: The Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.25,000/- under this head. Having regard to the nature of injury sustained, period of treatment, this is on the lower side. It would be appropriate if an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- is granted under this head making the compensation Rs.35,000/- as against Rs.25,000/- granted by the Triubnal.

¶60

Loss of amenities of life: The Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.20,000/- under this head, but described this head as loss of future happiness and amenities. Having regard to the nature of the injury sustained by the petitioner and the disability sustained by him, it would be appropriate if the compensation is increased by Rs.10,000/- under this head i.e., total sum of Rs.30,000/- as against Rs.20,000/granted by the Tribunal.

¶61

¶62

Future medical expenses: The Tribunal has

¶63

granted compensation in a sum of Rs.20,000/- under this head. Having regard to the nature of evidence led, the compensation granted under this head is appropriate and does not call for any interference.

¶64

Thus, in all petitioner is entitled for

¶65

compensation in a sum of Rs.2,76,300/- as against

¶66

Rs.2,36,300/- granted by the Tribunal as detailed below.

¶67

Heads	Amount granted by the Tribunal In Rs.	Amount granted by this Court In Rs.
Loss of future income	1,18,800	1,26,720
Pain and sufferings	25,000	35,000
Loss of income during laid up period	7,500	24,000
Medical, conveyance, Nutrition and Attendant charges	45,000	50,000
Loss of amenities of life	20,000	30,000
Future medical expenses	20,000	20,000
TOTAL	2,36,300	2,85,720

¶68

¶69

The Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of

¶70

8% p.a. without any basis. Therefore, the same is restricted to 6% p.a. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶71

ORDER

¶72

(i) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶73

(ii) Appellant/petitioner is entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.2,85,720/as against Rs.2,36,300/- granted by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization (minus the amount already paid/deposited)

¶74

(iii) The respondent No.2 Insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

¶76

SSB/RR

Sri. Shivanna v. Kantharaju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Shivanna v. Kantharaju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Susheelamma Vs C Srininvas

M/S Icici Lombard General Insurance Vs Kamalamma

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Vishwanath

Mr Koragappa Pooojary Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Syed Mushraf Vs Vasanth Kumar B R

The Divisional Manager Vs Mr. Koragappa Poojary