Partly allowed

Vimala @ Hemalatha v. M.M.J.Somashekharappa

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2022MFA/8992/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Motor Accident Compensation Appeals hearing where the High Court increased the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the appellant's injuries, modifying the award amount and directing the insurance company to pay the additional sum with interest.

What did the court decide?

Modified the impugned judgment and award to grant additional compensation of Rs. 34,109/- with interest at 8% per annum.

Vimala @ Hemalatha Vs M.M.J.Somashekharappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

M.F.A.NO.8992/2017 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VIMALA @ HEMALATHA W/O. NAGAPPA @ DODDANAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O. GONUR VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK-577 501. … APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI KANTHARAJAPPA M.G., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . M.M.J.SOMASHEKHARAPPA S/O M.M.J.CHANNABASAPPA

¶12

AGE: MAJOR, OWNER OF TVS XL BEARING REG.NO.KA-35-EC-4139 R/O. RENUKA EXTENSION KOTTUR, KUDLIGI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT.

¶13

2 . BRANCH MANAGER

¶14

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SHARADA COMPLEX OPP. KSRTC., BUS STAND, CHITRADURGA-577 501. ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI R.GOVINDARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 [THROUGH VC]; R1 SERVED)

¶16

¶17

THIS M.F.A., IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1383/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST ADDITINAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the consent of both the learned counsel it is taken up for final disposal.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶22

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 21.04.2017 passed in M.V.C.No.1383/2016 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-IV, at Chitradurga (‘the Tribunal’ for short), questioning the quantum of compensation.

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on account of the accident she has sustained the fracture of pubic rami. She was an inpatient for a period of 5 days from 29.06.2016 to 02.07.2016 and spent an amount of Rs.1 Lakh towards medical expenses. However, only produced the document of Ex.P16(1 to 10), which discloses that she has incurred Rs.12,605/- towards medical expenses.

¶26

The Tribunal taking into note of the evidence of the Doctor assessed the disability of 11.67% i.e., 1/3^rd of 35%. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in taking the disability. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.1 Lakh on the head of pain and sufferings and the same is exorbitant. Taking into note of only one fracture of pubic rami, it would have been Rs.50,000/- and an excess amount of Rs.50,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- on the head of

¶27

¶28

medical and incidental expenses, though the medical bills for a sum of Rs.12,605/- are produced.

¶29

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of

¶30

Rs.10,000/- towards food and nourishment, though she is an inpatient only for a period of 5 days, the same is just and reasonable and does not require any interference.

¶31

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.8,000/- on the head of loss of income during the laid up period for a period of one month. When the claimant has suffered the fracture of pubic rami, it requires minimum three months time for uniting and for rest. Hence, taking the notional income of Rs.9,500/- for a period of three months, it comes to Rs.28,500/- as against Rs.8,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶32

The Tribunal also awarded compensation on the head of permanent disability by taking the income of Rs.8,000/- with 11.67% disability. Hence, the same has to be re-visited by taking the income of Rs.9,500/- per month with 11.67% disability and the relevant multiplier 16, it comes to Rs.2,12,860/- (9500x12x16x11.67%).

¶33

¶34

The Tribunal also not awarded any compensation on

¶35

the head of loss of amenities. Having considered the age of the

¶36

injured i.e., 35 years, she has to lead rest of her life with the disability of 11.67%. Hence, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.30,000/- on the head of the loss of amenities.

¶37

In all, the claimant/appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,46,360/- as against Rs.3,12,251/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶38

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶39

following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i) The appeal is allowed-in-part.

¶42

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 21.04.2017 passed in M.V.C.No.1383/2016 is modified granting the additional compensation of Rs.34,109/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit.

¶43

¶44

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

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

cp*

Vimala @ Hemalatha v. M.M.J.Somashekharappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimala @ Hemalatha v. M.M.J.Somashekharappa

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

Smt. Manjula Vs Prasanna Kumara

The Managing Director Vs Kum. Sindhu

The Managing Director Vs Smt. Girija Bhaskar

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. M. Sulochana

Legal Manager Vs Bherulal

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Ravikumar