Partly allowed

Sri Srinath U S v. M/S the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2022MFA/636/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act against a Tribunal award of Rs.1,71,500/- for motor accident injuries, the Court partially allowed the appeal. The Court enhanced compensation for loss of income based on leave proof to Rs.2,51,750/- while upholding the Tribunal's awards for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and future medical expenses. The Insurance Company was directed to pay t

What did the court decide?

Tribunal award modified granting total compensation of Rs.2,51,750/- with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced portion from the date of the petition.

Sri Srinath U S Vs M/S the United India Insurance… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

M.F.A.NO.636/2015 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN: SRI SRINATH U.S., S/O. SRINIVASAMAYYA U.S., AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.6, 1^ST MAIN ROAD 1^ST CROSS, NAYAK LAYOUT JAMBOO SAVARI DINNE 8^TH PHASE, J.P.NAGAR BENGALURU. … APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SMT. SREE VIDYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI T.N.VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

1 . M/S. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., T.P. CLAIMS HUB "KRISHI BHAVAN", 5^TH & 6^TH FLOORS HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 002.

¶11

2 . SRI SAMSON RAJ S/O. SRI DORAIRAJ SUNDAR RAJ MAJOR, R/AT MEGACITY, MARAGONDANAHALLI B.G.THAMBUCHETTY PALYA BENGALURU-560 036. … RESPONDENTS

¶12

(BY SRI SRISHAILA S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 [THROUGH VC]; VIDE ORDER DATED 20.03.2017, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶13

¶14

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.5716/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶15

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

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent No.1-Insurance Company.

¶18

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 21.11.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.5716/2013 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) (‘the Tribunal’ for short)

¶19

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

¶20

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before

¶21

the Tribunal is that he was working in Syndicate Bank and due to the accident, he had suffered injury i.e. Acute complete ACL tear

¶22

¶23

and he was inpatient for a period of 2 days and he has also produced medical bills to the tune of Rs.6,500/-.

¶24

In respect of his claim, the claimant also examined the Doctor as P.W.2, who deposed that the claimant is in need of one more surgery which costs Rs.70,000 to Rs.80,000/-.

¶25

The learned counsel for the claimant also would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under pain and suffering in a sum of Rs.30,000/- is very meager and even though the document at Ex.P11 is produced that the claimant was on leave for 96 days, the Tribunal considered only 45 days and the compensation awarded on other heads i.e., loss of amenities in a sum of Rs.25,000/- and future medical expenses in a sum of Rs.35,000/- are very meager. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶26

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has discussed in detail that the Doctor has advised rest only for a period of 45 days and not for 3 months and hence, the Tribunal

¶27

¶28

rightly not considered the document at Ex.P11. It is also contended that the Tribunal also considered the nature of injury sustained by the claimant and awarded just and reasonable compensation. Hence, it does not require any interference.

¶29

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, the claimant was inpatient for a period of 2 days and the compensation awarded in a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering is just and reasonable and the same does not require any interference.

¶30

The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/towards

¶31

nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges and the same is just and reasonable and it does not require any interference since, the claimant was inpatient only for a period of 2 days.

¶32

The Tribunal awarded Rs.6,500/- towards medical expenses based on the documentary evidence and the same does not require any interference.

¶33

It is the contention of the claimant that towards future medical expenses, the Doctor has deposed that

¶34

¶35

Rs.70,000/- to Rs.80,000/- would be required. On perusal of the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.2, it is seen that he never treated the claimant. However, the Tribunal awarded future medical expenses of Rs.35,000/- and the same is just and reasonable.

¶36

Towards loss of amenities also, the Tribunal taken the disability at 9.3% which is 1/3^rd of 28%. Having taken note of the fact that the claimant has sustained only the injury of ACL tear, I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in awarding Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities.

¶37

However, the Tribunal committed an error in awarding compensation towards loss of income during laid up period for a period of 46 days on account of the evidence of the Doctor. But, the fact is that the claimant availed leave for 96 days and in support of the same, he has produced the document at Ex.P11. When such being the material on record, having considered the salary of Rs.46,953/- per month, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,50,250/- (46,953 x 3 = 1,40,859 + 6 days salary, Rs.9,391 = 1,50,250) towards loss of income during laid up period. Hence, in all, the claimant is entitled for

¶38

¶39

compensation of Rs.2,51,750/as against Rs.1,71,500/-

¶40

awarded by the Tribunal.

¶41

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶42

following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 21.11.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.5716/2013, is modified granting compensation of Rs.2,51,750/- as against Rs.1,71,500/- with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till deposit.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Sri Srinath U S v. M/S the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Srinath U S v. M/S the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

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. Radhamani K a Vs the National Insurance Company Limited

Sri Mariyanna @ Mariyappa Vs M/S Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri Bevina Guddaiah Vs the Divisional Manager

Smt Sunandamma Vs Smt Nanjamma

Manjunath Vs Mahadevappa

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt Ganga