Partly allowed

C. Nagasmitha v. B. R. Narendra Kumar

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2022MFA/8227/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an appeal partly, enhancing compensation awarded in a motor vehicle accident case. The court modified the Tribunal's award, increasing the sum from roughly Rs. 6.20 lakhs to Rs. 8.22 lakhs by expanding amounts for pain, suffering, amenities, future income, and loss of income during the laid-up period, and directed the insurer to pay the enhancement.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs. 2,00,773/- with interest at 6% p.a.; insurer directed to deposit the amount within four weeks.

C. Nagasmitha Vs B. R. Narendra Kumar — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8^TH 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.8227 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

C. NAGASMITHA D/O C.S.CHANDRASHEKAR HINDU, NOW AGED 26 YEARS R/OF CHIKKAHALLI, HIREHALLI POST URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI T.C. SATHISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

B.R. NARENDRA KUMAR

¶14

S/O B.D. RAMAIAH, HINDU MAJOR H.NO.134, KSRP QUARTERS TUMKUR - 572103 KARNATAKA STATE.

¶15

THE BRANCH MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NO.28, V FLOOR

¶16

¶17

EAST WING CENETENARY BUILDING M.G.ROAD BANGALORE 560 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 29-03-2021)

¶20

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.06.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.438/2014 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AND MACT XI TUMKURU PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

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

¶24

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 29.06.2017 passed in MVC No.438/2014 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM and MACT-IX, Tumkur, partly allowing the petition awarding compensation of Rs.6,20,355/-, petitioner has

¶25

¶26

approached this Court in appeal by urging various grounds.

¶27

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

¶28

The brief facts are as below:

¶29

On 12-10-2013 at about 4.40 p.m., on TumkurBengaluru road near Chikkahalli Gate of Uridgere Hobli, when the petitioner and her colleagues were traveling in the Skoda Car bearing No.KA.16.M.3825 from Dabbaspet Industrial Area towards Chikkahalli, the driver of the said car was taking right to reach Chikkahalli, the driver of Innova car bearing No.KA.03.MH 659 came in a rash and negligent manner from Tumkur side and dashed to the petitioner's car. Due to which, inmates of the Skoda car including the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and multiple fractures. Immediately, she was taken to Vinayaka Hospital, Tumkur, for treatment and then she has taken treatment at Rajshekhar Multi Specialty Hospital from 12-10-2013 to 25-10-2013 as inpatient and spent

¶30

¶31

Rs.5,00,000/towards medical and other incidental expenses.

¶32

It is further contended that prior to the accident, the petitioner was earning Rs.15,000/- per month working as Accountant at Eureaco E.Co. (P) Ltd.,at Dobbaspet and due to accident, she is not able to do her work and she is put to hardship and financial difficulties. Therefore, she filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are the owner and insurer of the vehicle

¶33

On issuance of notice by the Tribunal, respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement.

¶34

The 1st respondent in his written statement has contended that he is the owner of the Innova car bearing No.KA.03.MH.659, it was insured with 2nd respondent and driver of 1st respondent had valid DL and he has not committed any negligence and if there is any liability 2nd

¶35

¶36

respondent is liable to pay the same and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶37

2nd respondent in its written statement denied its liability to pay the compensation and also denied the income of the petitioner. It is contended that driver of 1st respondent was not holding driving licence to drive the car at that time and the owner of the Innova car has violated the policy conditions by handing over car to the driver who was not having DL and denied the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the medical expenses. It is further contended that accident was caused by the driver of the petitioner's car and therefore, it is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶38

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

¶39

"1. Whether the petitioner proves that, she sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12-10-2013 at about 4-40 p.m. on NH 04 Tumkur-Bangalore road near Chikkahalli Gate of Urdigere Hobli,

¶40

¶41

Tumkur, due to actionable negligence of driver of Innova car bearing Reg.No.KA.03.MH.659?

¶42

Whether respondent No.2 proves tht the driver of Innova car bearing Reg.No.KA.03.MH.659 was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle on the date of accident and the said vehicle was not having valid permit to ply on the road?

¶43

Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, what is the amount and who is liable to pay?

¶44

What order or award?

¶45

Before the Tribunal, petitioner got examined himself as PW1, examined one witness as PW 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P17. Respondents did not adduce or produce any oral or documentary evidence.

¶46

On hearing both the sides, the Tribunal answered the issue Nos.1 and 3 in the affirmative, Issue No.2 in the negative and allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.6,20,355/ - under different heads as under:

¶47

¶48

Pain sufferings	Rs. 10,000/-
Medical Expenses	Rs.3,95,648/-
Loss of future income	Rs.2,11,507/-
Loss of amenities, nutrition, diet and attendant charges	Rs. 3,200/-
Total	Rs.6,20,355/-

¶49

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

¶50

Respondent No.2- insurance company has appeared in pursuant to the notice issued by this Court and notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with vide order dated 29-2-2021.

¶51

Tribunal records have been secured and we have

¶52

heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶53

appellant/petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company/respondent No.2.

¶54

The fact that there was an accident involving the petitioner and that she had sustained the injuries in the accident is not in dispute. The fact that the vehicle was covered with the insurance issued by the 2nd respondent

¶55

as on the date of the accident is also not in dispute.

¶56

¶57

Therefore, it is only the reappraisal of the compensation awarded which is required.

¶58

The petitioner had sustained the injuries as may be found from the discharge summaries produced at Ex.P6 and P7 and wound certificate produced at Ex.P4. It is evident that she had sustained multiple rib fractures on the left side i.e. 3rd to 9th ribs with haemo pneothorax and comminuted anterior and posterior and roof fracture of acetabulum with central fracture dislocation of the left hip. Apart from these, there were lacerated injuries also. She was inpatient initially for a period of 13 days and later for a period of three more days. Considering all these aspects, we are of the view that the amount granted under the head of pain and sufferings needs to be enhanced and we do award the compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the said head.

¶59

The Tribunal has granted medical expenses of Rs.3,95,648/- which do not require any modification.

¶60

The loss of future income has been calculated by taking the disability at 16% which also do not require any

¶61

¶62

interference. However, the income is taken at Rs.6,120/by the Tribunal. We are of the view that if the said amount is considered with the escalation for future years, it comes to Rs.8,000/- per month. The Tribunal had considered the notional income with reference to Minimum Wages Act, but it had not considered the future prospects as laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and others¹ . Therefore, by adopting the monthly income of Rs.8,000/- (inclusive of the future prospects) the loss of future income is calculated as Rs.8,000/- 12 x 18 x 16%=2,76,480/-.

¶63

Sofar as nutritious food, diet attendant charges are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,200/- which appears to be inadequate. Hence, a sum of Rs.28,000/- is awarded under this head considering the period of inpatient treatment and the inconveniences arising out of the disability.

¶64

The petitioner has suffered the fracture of ribs, acetabulum and dislocation as described above. Therefore,

¶65

1 AIR 2017 SC 5157

¶66

¶67

it would be proper to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life.

¶68

The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation

¶69

under the head of loss of income during laid up period and therefore, holding that petitioner could not resume her activities for a period of four months, a sum of Rs.32,000/is awarded under this head.

¶70

Thus, the petitioner is entitled to modified

¶71

compensation as under:

¶72

Pain sufferings	Rs. 50,000/-
Medical Expenses	Rs.3,95,648/-
Loss of future income	Rs.2,76,480/-
Towards nutritious food, diet and attendant charges	Rs. 27,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period	Rs. 32,000/-
Loss of amenities	Rs. 40,000/-
Total	Rs.8,22,128/-
Less: awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.6,20,355/-
Enhancement	Rs.2,00,773/-

¶73

Thus, we propose to award the compensation by

¶74

a sum of Rs.2,00,773/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, we pass the following:

¶75

ORDER

¶76

(i) Appeal is allowed in part

¶77

¶78

(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 29.06.2017 passed in MVC No.438/2014 by the Tribunal is modified by enhancing the compensation of Rs.2,00,773/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

¶79

(iii) Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount together with interest within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶80

(iv) The conditions of apportionment and deposit as ordered by the Tribunal remain unaltered.

¶81

Sd/JUDGE

¶82

Sd/JUDGE

¶83

tsn*

C. Nagasmitha v. B. R. Narendra Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Nagasmitha v. B. R. Narendra Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Gowramma Vs Smt Jyothi Rodrigues

State by Police Sub-Inspector Vs Babu Reddy

Rehana Banu Vs Shivakumar R

Baiyanna Vs H.G.Chandramauli

Mr Nityananda R Poojary Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

The State of Karnataka Vs Murali