Partly allowed

Smt Reshma W/O T S Ashok Gowda v. M/S the Royal Sundaram Alliance

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2022MFA/9658/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Second Additional Judge allowed the Motor Vaoh act appeal filed by an Assistant Professor seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Traffic Tribunal. The High Court increased the compensation by Rs. 1,21,480/- along with interest for pain, suffering, amenities, and supported losses due to extended lay-up period, leading to a total award of Rs. 7,80,785/.

What did the court decide?

Allowed in part; enhanced compensation to Rs. 7,80,785/- with an additional Rs. 1,21,480/- plus interest at 6% p.a. directed to be deposited by the Insurance Company within four weeks.

Smt Reshma W/O T S Ashok Gowda Vs M/S the Royal… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15^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.9658 OF 2012 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. RESHMA W/O T.S. ASHOK GOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.103, SAPTHAGIRI ELEGANCE, SHIVARAMA KARANTH ROAD, CHIKKALLASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 061

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SMT. SHREE VIDHYA AND SRI.T.N.VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

M/S THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUNDARAM TOWERS, NO.45 AND 46, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI-14

¶14

MR.NARAYANAPPA SULKUNTE S/O SRI.PILLAPPA, MAJOR, R/AT SULKUNTE VILLAGE, SARJAPURA ROAD,

¶15

¶16

CARMELARAM POST, VARTHUR, BANGALORE- 560 097,

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD.16.04.2014)

¶19

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.06.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6309/2009 ON THE FILE OF XXI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 11.06.2012 passed in MVC No.6309/2009 by the learned XXI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT, Bangalore, partly allowing the petition awarding compensation of Rs.6,49,305/-, the petitioner/appellant has approached this Court in appeal urging various grounds.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

3. The brief facts are as below:

¶26

On 21.12.2008 at about 6.30 p.m., petitioner was traveling as pillion rider in motor cycle bearing No.KA-05HB-5129 along with her husband from Banashankari to Wokrhardt Hospital on Bannerghatta road and when petitioner's husband was standing on the road by using indicator to take U turn in front of the Wockhardt hospital, the driver of the Tata sumo bearing registration No.KA-536795 came from behind in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle in which petitioner was traveling as a pillion rider and thereby caused the accident. By virtue of this accident petitioner and her minor son sustained grievous injuries all over the body, immediately they were shifted to Wockhardt hospital. Petitioner was treated inpatient from 21.12.2008 to 23.12.2008 in the said hospital and later she was shifted to Ganga Medical Center and Hospital Coimbatore for further treatment and she was treated inpatient in the said hospital from 24.12.2008 to 08.02.2009.

¶27

¶28

It is further case of the petitioner that she was Assistant Professor by Profession working at PES Institute of Technology, Bangalore, and drawing the salary of Rs.30,000/- p.m. Due to the accident, she could not able to attend her work for another one year and she lost a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- so far. It is further contended that she lost her job by virtue of the accident and her employer has already appointed another person to her place. She further asserted that, at the time of accident she was pursuing her P.hd. in Biotechnology at Vishweshwaraiah Technology University and could able to continue her further studies and if she had completed P.hd in time, she would have got better opportunity, post, salary in her profession. She also contended that she used to attend various Programmes and seminars all over India and also abroad and one such seminar was there at Sikkim on 24.12.2008. Due to this accident she could not attend the said seminar and lost all the benefits from the seminar and other Programmes, She further contended that, she was trainer under Suvarna Jala Programme of Government of

¶29

¶30

Karnataka in which she was training Head Masters of Govt. Schools of various districts regarding rain water harvesting. She was also actively involved with various N.G.O.s., regarding conversation of medical plans.

¶31

It is further contended that, due to the accident petitioner is unable to carry out all the activities and thereby lost all her present and future earnings in this regard. It is petitioner's further case that before the accident she was hale and healthy and doing her day to day work efficiently and now she has permanently become disabled, undergoing lot of mental and physical stress. Accident taken place due to negligent driving of the Tata Sumo driver which belongs to the 2nd respondent herein and 1st respondent is the insurer and they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the inconvenience and discomfort caused to her apart from permanent disability.

¶32

¶33

On issuance of notice by the Tribunal,2nd respondent remained absent and placed exparte and 1st respondent-Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and resisted this petition by filing his written statement contending that, petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case and 2nd respondent has not at all complied the provisions of Section 134(c) of M.V.Act 1988 and that driver of Tata sumo was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and has entrusted his faithful to such a person and thereby committed the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. But 1st respondent admitted that it is the insurer of 2nd respondent's Tata sumo vehicle bearing No.KA-53-6795 and contended that his liability if any is limited to the terms and conditions of the said policy. It is also denied that the Tata sumo driver was driving his vehicle in a careful manner and there was no negligence on the part of the said driver and that amount of compensation claimed by petitioner is too exorbitant and hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶34

¶35

On the basis of the above pleadings and contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the necessary issues. Before the Tribunal, petitioner got examined herself as PW1 and examined one witness as PW 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P25. Respondent No.1 did not adduce or produce any oral or documentary evidence.

¶36

On hearing both the sides, the Tribunal answered

¶37

issue No.1 in the affirmative and passed an award for a

¶38

sum of Rs.6,59,305/ - under different heads as below:

¶39

Pain and sufferings	Rs. 40,000/-
Medicine charges	Rs.4,46,345/-
Nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges	Rs. 30,000/-
Loss of Amenities	Rs. 30,000/-
Loss of income during laid of period	Rs.1,02,960/-
Future medical expenses (which does not carry any interest)	Rs. 10,000/-
Total	Rs.6,59,305/-

¶40

Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the

¶41

petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement.

¶42

¶43

8. Respondent No.1-Insurance company has

¶44

appeared in pursuance to the notice issued by this Court and notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

¶45

Tribunal records have been secured and we have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company/respondent No.1.

¶46

The fact that there was an accident involving the vehicle owned by 2nd respondent and insured by 1st respondent -Insurance Company is not in dispute. The petitioner and her minor son had sustained injuries in the accident and the petitioner was inpatient from 21-12-2008 to 23-12-2008 and later at Ganga Medical Center and Hospital Coimbatore from 24-12-2008 to 08-02-2009. The petitioner contends that she was Assistant Professor by Profession at PES Institute of Technology Bengaluru with a salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. On a careful appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs.25,740/- per month. Assessing the disability and

¶47

¶48

considering the fact that the disability has not affected the income, it has not awarded any amount under the said head. We also do not subscribe to the contentions of the appellant that there is loss of earning capacity of the petitioner. She had sustained crush injury to her right lower limb and had ended up with a permanent disability of 24% to the whole body as per the medical records. The injury to the right lower limb has not affected the earning capacity of the petitioner. However, the crush injury definitely affects her movement and it definitely causes inconvenience in the discharge of her duties. Considering these aspects, we are of the view that the compensation under the head of nourishment and attendant charges, loss of amenities in life and the loss of income during laid up period need enhancement.

¶49

Considering the nature of injuries sustained by he petitioner it would be proper to award a sum of Rs.80,000/- under the head of pain and sufferings, a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head of nourishment and attendant charges, a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of

¶50

¶51

loss of amenities in life. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner is a Professor and she has to stand in her professional capacity, the loss of income during laid up period has to be increased to six months instead of 4 months.

¶52

Hence, in view of the discussion made above,

¶53

the compensation is modified as below:

¶54

Pain and sufferings	Rs. 80,000/-
Medicine charges	Rs.4,46,345/-
Nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges	Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of Amenities	Rs. 50,000/-
Loss of income during laid of period	Rs.1,54,440/-
Future medical expenses (which	Rs. 10,000/-
does not carry any interest)
Total	Rs.7,80,785/-
Less: awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.6,59,305/-
Enhancement	Rs.1,21,480/-

¶55

Thus, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal, there shall be an increase of Rs.1,21,480/together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶56

Hence, we pass the following:

¶57

¶58

ORDER

¶59

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶60

(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 11-06-2012 passed in MVC No.6309/2009 by the Tribunal is modified by awarding additional compensation of Rs.1,21,480/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit.

¶61

(iii) All other conditions regarding apportionment and deposit remain unaltered.

¶62

(iv) Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

tsn*

Smt Reshma W/O T S Ashok Gowda v. M/S the Royal Sundaram Alliance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Reshma W/O T S Ashok Gowda v. M/S the Royal Sundaram Alliance

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

State of Karnataka Vs Prashanth

State of Karnataka Vs Hanumesha

The State of Karnataka Vs Murali

R Puttarangaiah Vs Dheeraj Krishna @ Dheeri

The State by New Extension Vs Dheeraj Krishana @ Dheeri

Manjula Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer