Partly allowed

Sri. Nagaraj v. Smt. Padmamma

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2022MFA/897/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed this Motor Accident Claim appeal in part. The court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by increasing the quantum for loss of future earning capacity, loss of income during treatment, and food/nourishment, adjusting for the claimant's age and disability percentage.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation from Rs. 4,09,000 to Rs. 4,73,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition.

Sri. Nagaraj Vs Smt. Padmamma — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

M.F.A.NO.897/2013 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. NAGARAJ S/O. SRI VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT C/O. KRISHNA MURTHY, NO.14, 3^RD MAIN, GANESHA TEMPLE STREET, KAMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 004. … APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI K.RAMEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

1 . SMT. PADMAMMA W/O. NAGARAJ, NO.39, PATALAMA TEMPLE STREET, CHINTAMANI TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶11

2 . SRIRAMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., S-5, II FLOOR, MANARCH CHAMBERS, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS

¶12

(BY SRI N.K.VENKATARAMANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶13

¶14

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.11.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.6615/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII A.C.M.M. AND XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE, 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 learned counsel for the respondents.

¶18

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 04.11.2011 passed in M.V.C.No.6615/2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru (‘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 is that on 31.07.2009 at about 7.00 a.m., he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of a tempo in which he was traveling and dashed against a tamarind tree. Hence, he

¶21

¶22

sustained grievous injuries and immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Chintamani and thereafter, he was shifted to Sai Baba Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as inpatient from 31.07.2009 to 31.08.2009.

¶23

In support of his claim, he examined himself as P.W.1 and a witness as P.W.2. He also examined the Doctor as P.W.3 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P15. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 examined its legal officer as R.W.1 and got marked the copy of the policy as Ex.R1.

¶24

The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, awarded compensation of Rs.4,09,000/-. Hence, the present appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation.

¶25

It is contended by the claimant in the appeal that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding an amount of Rs.55,000/- under the head of pain and suffering and also committed an error in taking the income at Rs.3,000/- per month. It is also his contention that only a meager sum of Rs.60,000/- is awarded towards loss of future earning capacity

¶26

¶27

and a sum of Rs.30,000/- on the head of loss of amenities. Hence, the compensation awarded is very meager and prayed this Court to enhance the compensation.

¶28

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the Tribunal considering the material available on record has awarded just and reasonable compensation exonerating the liability of the Insurance Company and it does not require any interference of this Court.

¶29

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, the Tribunal has discussed in detail while answering issue No.2 regarding the nature of injuries i.e., head injuries suffered and also taken note of the fact that the claimant was inpatient for a period of one month in the hospital and considering the document at Ex.P7wound certificate, awarded an amount of Rs.55,000/- under the head of pain and suffering and it does not require any interference and the same is just and reasonable.

¶30

The Tribunal, considering the medical expenses incurred to the extent of Rs.2,44,789/added another

¶31

¶32

Rs.10,000/- for food and conveyance during the period of treatment as inpatient and also for follow up treatment and awarded an amount of Rs.2,55,000/- in all and the same does not require any interference.

¶33

The Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.3,000/- per month. It is the accident of the year 2009 and in the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income at Rs.5,000/- per month. The Doctor, who treated the claimant assessed the disability at 12% and the same has been accepted by the Tribunal and awarded an amount of Rs.60,000/towards loss of future earning capacity and the same requires to be revisited. Since, the claimant is aged about 40 years, the multiplier ‘15’ would be applicable and taking the income at Rs.5,000/- per month and the disability at 12%, the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.1,08,000/- (5,000 x 12 x 15 x 12/100) as against Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶34

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- on

¶35

the head of loss of amenities and the same is just and reasonable, since the injured is having 12% disability.

¶36

¶37

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.9,000/- on

¶38

the head of loss of income during treatment period taking the income at Rs.3,000/- per month. Since, the injured claimant was inpatient for a period of one month and also sustained head injury, the Tribunal ought to have taken the laid up period as 4 months and if the same is taken, considering the income at Rs.5,000/- per month, it comes to Rs.20,000/- as against Rs.9,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶39

The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/- towards food and nourishment and conveyance during the period of treatment while awarding compensation towards medical expenses. Having taken note that the accident is of the year 2009 and considering the fact that he was inpatient for a period of one month, it is appropriate to award additional Rs.5,000/- as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, in all, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.4,73,000/- as against Rs.4,09,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶40

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶41

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶44

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 04.11.2011 passed in M.V.C.No.6615/2009, is modified granting compensation of Rs.4,73,000/- as against Rs.4,09,000/- with interest at 6% per annum 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

(v) In all other respects, the order of the Tribunal remains undisturbed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Sri. Nagaraj v. Smt. Padmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Nagaraj v. Smt. Padmamma

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

Nagarathnamma Vs Hanumantha Reddy

Ravi Vs Rafeeq Pasha

Raghu Vs Sri Umesh

Sri Prabhakar @ Udaya Vs Sri Sayeed Ahmed

Venkatesh Vs Ganapathi

Smt Parvathi Vs Mr.Kulur Iqbal Sheikh