Partly allowed

Suresh Dhanashetti v. M/S Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd

Karnataka HC20 Oct 2022MFA/767/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court modified the Tribunal's award. The Court enhanced compensation for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, and food/nourishment, while affirming the Tribunal's finding that no loss of future income existed.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 3,66,238 to Rs. 4,41,238; Insurance Company directed to deposit amount with interest within six weeks.

Suresh Dhanashetti Vs M/S Shriram General Insurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶5

MFA No.767 OF 2019(MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Suresh Dhanashetti, S/o Danappa, Aged about 48 years, R/at # 536/9 Prakash Gowda Building, Hosur Road, Doddathoguru, Electronic City, Bengaluru-560 100. … Appellant

¶8

(By Sri.Sridhar D.S., Advocate)

¶9

AND:

¶10

M/s.Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., R/by its Manager, Now R/at # 5/4, 3^rd Floor, S.V. Arcade. Belkahalli Main Road, Off B G Road, 2^nd IIMB, Bemgaluru-560 076.

¶11

Masthigowda B.G., S/o Gangadhara, Major, R/o Basavanahalli Village, Akkanahalli post, Nuggihalli Hobli, Ahhanahalli, Hassan, Karnataka-573131. ... Respondents

¶12

¶13

(By Sri.Shashikumar S., Advocate for Sri. A.N. Krishnaswamy, Advocate for R1: Sri. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for R2)

¶14

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated:28.09.2018 passed in MVC No. 1021/2017 on the file of the II Additional Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCh-13) partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶15

This MFA, coming on for admission, this day, this Court, delivered the following:

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2018 passed by the Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru (SCCH-13) in MVC No.1021/2017.

¶18

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 01.12.2016 at about 5.30 p.m. the claimant was proceeding in TVS motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-01/Y-4742 on Venankani road, Electronic

¶19

¶20

City. At that time, a Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KA03/AA-2912 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶21

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶22

On service of notice, the respondent No.1

¶23

appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. The age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further

¶24

¶25

pleaded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent riding of the vehicle by the claimant himself. It was further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. It was further pleaded that the liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶26

The respondent No.2 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed exparte.

¶27

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and Dr.B.Ramesh was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P25. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and no documents were got marked. The Claims Tribunal, by the

¶28

¶29

impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,66,238./along with interest @ 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶30

Sri D.S.Sridhar, the learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions:

¶31

Firstly, he has examined the doctor as PW-2 who in his evidence has deposed that the claimant has suffered 28% disability to left lower limb and 14% whole body disability. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head ‘loss of future income due to disability’.

¶32

Secondly, due to disability the claimant has pain in left knee, difficulty in squatting, climbing upstairs and difficult to do routing activities. The compensation awarded by the

¶33

¶34

Tribunal for 'pain and sufferings', 'loss of amenities' and other heads are on the lower side. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶35

On the other hand, Sri Shashidhar, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions:

¶36

Firstly, even though the doctor has deposed that claimant has suffered 14% whole body disability, he has not suffered any future loss of income. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded any compensation under the said head.

¶37

Secondly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶38

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶40

perused the judgment and award and the original records.

¶41

It is not in dispute that the claimant has

¶42

sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶43

Due to the accident, the claimant has sustained proximal tibia fracture left grade and underwent bone graft. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered whole body disability at 14%. Since the claimant continued in his job, there is no ‘loss of future income due to disability’. The Tribunal has rightly not awarded any compensation under the said head.

¶44

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer with the disability and unhappiness throughout his life. Considering the same, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the

¶45

¶46

Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.75,000/-, 'loss of amenities' from Rs.30,000/to Rs.60,000/-, ‘food, conveyance and nourishment’ from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.

¶47

Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation

¶48

awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶49

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶50

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	50,000	75,000
Medical expenses	1,20,284	1,20,284
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	30,000	50,000
Loss of income during laid up period	1,35,954	1,35,954
Loss of amenities	30,000	60,000
Total	3,66,238	4,41,238

¶51

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶52

¶53

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of

¶54

Rs.4,41,238/- as against Rs.3,66,238/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶55

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment .

¶56

Cm/-

Suresh Dhanashetti v. M/S Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Dhanashetti v. M/S Shriram General Insurance 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

Sri Krupashankar Vs Sri Yogesh H R

M Chethan Vs the Manager

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajanna S/O Siddappa

H.Vanajakshi Vs M.B.Manjunatha

Mr Vinod K Vs Mr Kumar C M

Sri Sharanabasappa Vs Bhavya N