Partly allowed

Ravikumar L v. Rajanna

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2022MFA/7684/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against motor accident claim award enhancing global compensation. Court noted anomaly where attendant charges exceeded loss of future earnings due to petitioner's low income despite high disability. Awarded additional global compensation of Rs 3,00,000 in addition to Tribunal's award with interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and award modified to award additional global compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 with interest at 6% p.a. from date of petition.

Ravikumar L Vs Rajanna — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.JOSHI

¶7

M.F.A. NO.7684 OF 2014 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

1 . RAVIKUMAR L S/O D LAKSHMIPATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶10

2 . D LAKSHMIPATHAIAH S/O DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶11

BOTH ARE R/A HOUSE NO. OLD NO.4 NEW NO.437, 3^RD B CROSS, MUNESHWARA NAGAR, NAGASANDRA POST BAGALAGUNTE, BANGALORE - 560 073

¶12

...APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI B.M.CHANDRASHEKAR AND SRI.KUMAR K G, ADVOCATES)

¶14

AND:

¶15

1 . RAJANNA S/O RAMAIAH

¶16

NO.192, NELAGADARANAHAALI

¶17

¶18

NAGASANDRA POST BANGALORE - 560 073

¶19

2 . ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. CORPORATION OFFICE, ZENITH HOUSE KESHAVARAO KHADE MARG MAHALAKSHMI

¶20

MUMBAI - 400 034

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O/DATED 12-8-2015)

¶23

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED.24.06.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.8584/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-4, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY C.M.JOSHI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

By consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal though it is listed for admission.

¶27

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 24.06.2014 passed in MVC No.8584/2010 by the learned

¶28

¶29

XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, and Member, MACT-4, Bangalore, partly allowing the petition awarding compensation of Rs.25,75,000/-, the injured petitioner through his guardian, father has approached this Court in appeal by urging various grounds.

¶30

The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶31

The brief facts are as below:

¶32

That on 18.06.2010 at about 7.30 p.m. when the petitioner was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.KA-40-K-9718 on the extreme left side of the road near Hesaraghatta road, at Dwarakanagara cross, Banaswarsoldenahalli, Bangalore at that time, driver of the car bearing No.KA-02-MC-9916 came with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and took treatment in the hospital and spent lot of money for his treatment. It is also contended that he is aged about 23 years, Data Entry Operator and earning

¶33

¶34

Rs.5,500/- per month and sustained loss of earnings. Hence, injured petitioner has filed a claim petition through his natural guardian/father seeking compensation of Rs.1,39,50,000/- from the respondents.

¶35

Upon service of notices by the Tribunal, both respondent No-1 owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 insurance company have appeared through their respective counsel and filed their respective written statement and denied the entire petition averments. Further respondent No.2 contended that driver of the offending vehicle does not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. However admitted the issuance of the insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle and its validity as on the date of the accident. Further, it is contended that its liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.

¶36

On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following Issues:

¶37

¶38

"1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he met with an RTA that occurred on 18-62010 at about 7-30 p.m. near Dwarakanagar cross, Hesaraghatta main road, Bengaluru and sustained injuries due to rash or negligent driving of Maruthi Omni bearing No.KA-02-MC-9916?

¶39

Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, at what amount and from whom?

¶40

What order?

¶41

Before the Tribunal, petitioner's father/guardian of

¶42

the petitioner is examined as PW3 and examined the doctors who treated the petitioner as PWs 1 and 2 and also examined the Assistant Manager of Mynd Solution Pvt.Ltd., as PW4 and marked Exs.P1 to P44. Respondents did not adduce or produce any oral or documentary evidence.

¶43

On hearing both the sides, the Tribunal answered

¶44

the issue No.1 in the affirmative, Issue No.2 partly in the

¶45

¶46

affirmative and allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.25,75,000/- under different heads as under:

¶47

Pain and sufferings	Rs. 3,00,000/-
Loss of amenities & Happiness	Rs. 2,00,000/-
Medical and incidental charges	Rs. 7,00,000/-
Attendant charges	Rs. 6,48,000/-
Loss of earnings during the period of treatment	Rs. 33,000/-
Loss of future earnings due to disability	Rs. 5,94,000/-
Loss of future marriage prospectus	Rs. 50,000/-
Future Medical expenses	Rs. 50,000/-
Total	Rs.25,75,000/-

¶48

Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the petitioner is before this Court through his father seeking enhancement.

¶49

Respondent No.2-insurance company has

¶50

appeared in pursuant to the notice issued by this Court and notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with vide order dated 12-8-2015.

¶51

The Tribunal records have been secured and we have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sri K.G. Kumar for Sri B.M.Chandrashekhar and the learned

¶52

¶53

counsel appearing for the Insurance Company Sri. B.C. Shivanne Gowda.

¶54

The petition has been filed through the father of the petitioner since the petitioner is of unsound mind and his father is the natural guardian. The fact that the accident was caused by the Maruthi Omni bearing KA.02.MC 9916 on 18-6-2010 and that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 is not in dispute. The only question that is raised before us is regarding the quantum of the compensation.

¶55

The evidence of PW1 -Dr.Abhijit Chavan, reads

¶56

as below:

¶57

"......18-6-2010 they received the petitioner who came with history of RTA and he was loss of consciousness since accident, with history of right ear bleed and one episode of GTC seizures, first aid was done at a local hospital, later referred to Sita Bhateja Speciality hospital. He also stated that x-rays revealed left displaced acetabulum fracture and right undisplaced acetabulum fracture, fracture of mid shaft of left femur with displacement with acetabulum fracture, segmental of tibia and fibula fracture, mandible fracture seen in mandibular parasymphysis, CT scan brain-areas of hemorrhagic contusions with right frontotemporo lobes right basal ganglia, thalamus, right corona radiate and right half of mid brain with mass effect and midline shift to left, petitioner was put on ventilator on day of admission, petitioner was managed conservatively for head injury with anti edema measures, underwent closed reduction and

¶58

¶59

internal fixation with interlock nailing (11 x 380) for left femur under GA on 22-6-2010, underwent closed reduction and internal fixation with interlock nailing (10 x 360) under GA on 22-6-2010, underwent ORIF parasymphysis of mandible under GA on 8-7-2010, underwent ORIF post column with & 7 holed recon plate under GA on 8-7-2010 (left) acetabulum, underwent ORIF anterior column with 7 holed recon plate under GA on 8-7-2010 (left) acetabulum, left hemi paresis (Ischemic right ICA stroke secondary to hypotension) tracheotomy closed, on RT feeds and condom catheter, being mobilized on wheel chair, petitioner was discharged on 19-7-2010 and was reviewed regularly in OPD. That Dr.Prathiba Sharan (Neuro-psychologist) has assessed neuropsychological disability of 35% and neurobehavioral disability at 20%, combined neurobehavioral and cognitive disabilities at 47.22% and combined neurobehavioral, cognitive disabilities and orthopaedic disabilities at 83.69%........"

¶60

The Neurophysiologist is examined as PW2 and she has also stated about the disability of the petitioner. According to her, the combined neurobehavioral and cognitive disabilities are at 47.22%. The relevant documents in this regard are at Exs.P2, P8 to 11.

¶61

On a careful perusal of the above evidence, we do not find any reason to find fault with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the petitioner is unable to look after himself. The Tribunal has assessed the disability at 50% and by taking the income at Rs.5,500/-, calculated the compensation at Rs.5,94,000/- by adopting multiplier

¶62

¶63

of '18'. In addition to it, the Tribunal has also granted the compensation under the head of attendant charges to the extent of Rs.6,48,000/-. It is relevant to note that the compensation under the head of attendant charges is more than the loss of future income of the petitioner. In other words, the Tribunal has considered the income of the petitioner lesser than the income of the attendant. Therefore, this anomaly needs to be rectified. We do not intend to enter into a detailed discussion regarding the disability and other aspects which were not raised before us. Considering these aspects, we find that a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- would have to be awarded to the petitioner as a global compensation in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, we pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

(i) Appeal is allowed in part

¶66

(ii) The impugned judgment and award

¶67

dated 24.06.2014 passed in MVC No.8584/2010

¶68

by the Tribunal is modified by awarding additional global compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-

¶69

¶70

together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit.

¶71

(iii) Insurance company is directed to

¶72

deposit the compensation amount together with interest within a period of 4 weeks from the date

¶73

of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶74

(iv) The conditions of apportionment and

¶75

deposit as ordered by the Tribunal remain unaltered.

¶76

Sd/JUDGE

¶77

Sd/JUDGE

¶78

tsn*

Ravikumar L v. Rajanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravikumar L v. Rajanna

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. Nagamani Vs Syed Sadiq

State of Karnataka Vs Bhojaiah @ Bhojappa

Sri G Mahan Vs Sri Sushanth Kamath

State of Karnataka Vs Purushothama @ Mari

State of Karnataka Vs Kenchaveerappa

Smt H R Rajeshwari Vs Muthu