Partly allowed

Smt.Renuka @ Prema W/O Maruti Todekar, v. Ms. Popular Mega Motors (India) Ltd.

Karnataka HC4 Aug 2023MFA/100428/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Division Bench enhanced compensation awarded in a motor vehicle accident case. The Court recalculated loss of earning capacity based on a 5% disability and awarded amounts for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, and incidental expenses, directing the insurer to pay the enhanced total.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.30,000 to Rs.1,18,000 including interest; Impugned award modified; Order costs dismissed.

Smt.Renuka @ Prema W/O Maruti Todekar, Vs Ms… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8372 MFA No. 100428 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100428/2016(MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.RENUKA ALIAS PREMA W/O. MARUTI TODEKAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: SWEEPER CUM PEON, R/O BENDIGER ONI, TQ: KALGHATAGI.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI B. S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MS. POPULAR MEGA MOTORS (INDIA) LTD., BYE PASS ROAD, ACHAUMANA, KOCHIN 682024.

¶13

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SAVITA SADAN, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD.

¶14

Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR

¶15

ABU RSO-DHARWAD, TATA MOTORS LTD, PUNE-BANGALORE ROAD, NH-4, NEAR HIGH COURT BENCH DHARWAD.

¶16

(BY SRI M.Y. KATAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO FOR THE SAID REASONS MENTIONED ABOVE THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY KINDLY BE ENHANCED THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.08.2015 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.368/2012 BY THE IN THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND ADDITIONAL MACT HUBBALLI (ITINARY COURT OF KALGHATAGI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8372 MFA No. 100428 of 2016

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’ for brevity) by the appellant–claimant, calling in question the judgment and award dated 14.08.2015, passed in M.V.C.No.368/2012, on the file of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT., Hubballi (Itinary Court of Kalghatagi) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) for seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶24

Brief facts of the case is that on 13.11.2011 at about

¶25

4.00 p.m., he was standing at Dummawad bus stop and at that time the driver of the vehicle bearing No.KA-25/TRD4476 came with great speed rash and negligently and dashed against the appellant. As a result appellant sustained grievous injuries and admitted to the Government Hospital, Kalghatagi then shifted to KIMS Hospital Hubballi for treatment for the injuries sustained in the accident. Petitioner is still under treatment and has

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8372 MFA No. 100428 of 2016

¶27

already spent about Rs.40,000/towards medical expenses. It is contended that the petitioner was doing sweeper work and also having the agricultural lands. Due to the injuries, the petitioner is unable to do work which she was doing earlier. To claim compensation appellant/petitioner has filed petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act, 1988 before the Tribunal. But, Tribunal has granted global compensation of Rs.30,000/- only along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant/claimant is before this Court.

¶28

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and the learned counsel for respondent–Insurance company and perused the materials on record.

¶29

Since there is no evidence to the effect that the claimant/petitioner sustained fracture and there is functional disability, claimant/petitioner has not produced the documents for having taken the treatment in the private hospital, claimant/petitioner has not produced

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8372 MFA No. 100428 of 2016

¶31

medical documents to the effect that she has spent Rs.40,000/- for medical expenses. The receipts produced by the petitioner disclosed that she spent Rs.250/- only. Considering the fact that claimant/petitioner is having recurring pain and taken the treatment as out patient and also it would have effect her sweeping work for some period and the claimant has spent some amount for conveyance, Tribunal has awarded global compensation of Rs.30,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the petition till realization.

¶32

It is seen from the medical evidence on record, viz., Exhibit-P3 which is Wound Certificate, it is seen that the claimant has suffered the following injuries:

¶33

“i. Pain left clavicle and left shoulder,

¶34

ii. Difficulty in using left shoulder during her routine work.

¶35

iii. Increased pain in left shoulder in using left upper extremity.

¶36

iv. On clinical examination: Diffuse tenderness left clavicle middle 3^rd and left shoulder anterior aspect.

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8372 MFA No. 100428 of 2016

¶38

v. Left shoulder movement full range but painful in extremes with normal power in muscles.

¶39

vi. X-ray of left shoulder and clavicle(No.6344 dated 02.10.2013 shows mal-united fracture of left clavicle)

¶40

The aforesaid injuries are simple in nature. The claimant was working as a sweeper cum peon in private institution. Therefore, considering this, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is less. Hence. Rs.20,000/- is awarded under the head ‘Pain and Sufferings .

¶41

The claimant was aged 40 years and the accident has occurred during the year 2011. Therefore, as per Chart of notional income recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, a sum of Rs.6,000/- is to be taken as notional monthly income of the claimant. The Tribunal had taken 5% disability to the whole-body. The criteria for calculating functional disability is elaborately discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs.

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8372 MFA No. 100428 of 2016

¶43

Ajay Kumar and Another¹ Therefore, considering the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra, and the injuries suffered by the appellant and the avocation of the appellant-claimant being coolie, certainly the disability will affect his earning capacity. Accordingly, 5% functional disability to the whole-body is taken into consideration. The appropriate multiplier applicable as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Others. Vs. Delhi Transport Corpn And Another² is ‘15’. Therefore, the compensation under the head ‘Loss of Earning

¶44

Capacity Due to Disability’ is recalculated and

¶45

quantified as follows:

¶46

Rs.6,000/- x 5/100 x 15 x 12 =Rs.54,000/-

¶47

The Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards

¶48

‘ Loss Of Amenities’ and hence a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the said head.

¶49

1 (2011) 1 SCC 343

¶50

2 AIR 2009 SC 3104

¶51

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8372 MFA No. 100428 of 2016

¶52

In view of the accidental injuries, the claimant would

¶53

have taken rest for at least for a period of three months. Therefore, by taking income at Rs.6,000/- per month and calculating the laid up period for three months, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.18,000/- (Rs.6,000 x 3 months) , under the head ‘Loss Of Earning During

¶54

Laid Up Period’ .

¶55

The Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head incidental expenses such as ‘Food, Nourishment, Conveyance and Attendant Charges’

¶56

and hence a sum of Rs.1,000/- is awarded under this head.

¶57

Therefore, in modification of the award of the

¶58

Tribunal, the appellant-claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶59

Pain and Sufferings	: Rs.	20,000/-
Loss of Amenities	: Rs.	25,000/-

¶60

¶61

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8372 MFA No. 100428 of 2016

¶62

Incidental expenses such as food,	:	Rs.	1,000/-
Conveyance and Nourishment
Loss of earning during laid up	:	Rs.	18,000/-
period (Rs.6,000 x 3 months)
Loss of future income due to	:	Rs.	54,000/-
disability
TOTAL	:	Rs.	1,18,000/-

¶63

Therefore, the appellant-claimant is entitled for

¶64

compensation of Rs.1,18,000/- as against Rs.30,000/-. The appellant – claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.88,000/(Rs.1,18,000–

¶65

Rs.30,000) along with interest at 6% per annum from the

¶66

date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of total compensation within Eight Weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

¶67

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶68

9 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8372 MFA No. 100428 of 2016

¶69

ORDER

¶70

i. The appeal is allowed in part .

¶71

ii. The impugned judgment and award 14.08.2015, passed in M.V.C.No.368/2012, on the file of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Hubballi is modified to the aforesaid extent.

¶72

iii. The appellant – claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.88,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶73

iv. The remaining observations and findings made by the Tribunal in the aforesaid impugned judgment and award are kept in tact.

¶74

v. Respondent– insurance company shall pay the compensation to the appellant/claimant.

¶75

10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8372 MFA No. 100428 of 2016

¶76

vi. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶77

vii. Claimant –appellant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 31 days in filing the appeal.

¶78

viii. Draw award accordingly.

¶79

ix. No order as to costs.

¶80

SD/JUDGE

¶81

HMB,

¶82

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25 CT-ASC

Smt.Renuka @ Prema W/O Maruti Todekar, v. Ms. Popular Mega Motors (India) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Renuka @ Prema W/O Maruti Todekar, v. Ms. Popular Mega Motors (India) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Sri.Sanjay Ramappa Waghamore

Smt.Shantawwa Vs Shri.Laxman Y. Kademani

Radha Chandrashekar Madiwal Vs Manjunath Timmappa Gouda

Gangadhar S/O Dayanandayya Hallurmath, Vs the Managing Director

Nadeem Baba @ Nadeem Babu S/O Ibrahim Vs Ummar S/O Yusuf

Smt Annapurna W/O Atmaram Anvekar Vs Sri. Anand S/O Narayan Shetty