The High Court allowed the miscellaneous first appeal against a Tribunal award for road accident compensation, enhancing the claim from Rs. 62,520 to Rs. 1,33,000 and reducing interest from 9% to 6% per annum.
Compensation enhanced from Rs. 62,520 to Rs. 1,33,000 payable with interest at 6% per annum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1017 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
RANGAMAANAR S/O. LATE RAJAMAANAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT. 2ND CROSS, BEHIND FOREST OFFICE, SUBHASHNAGAR, MANDYA - 571 401 (BY SRI: RAJA .L., ADVOCATE)
…APPELLANT
AND:
Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: D. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2
V/O DATED: 30.11.2017 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 22.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1248/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & MACT, MANDYA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This Appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the Award passed in M.V.C.No.1248/2012 on the file of the II Addl.Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Mandya dated 22.08.2016, whereby the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.62,520/- as compensation.
injuries sustained by the claimant and the surgery he had underwent for the fracture of clavicle, under the head of pain and suffering, the court below had granted an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses though the claimant had claimed an amount of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.30,000/- was granted towards nursing care, food, transport and other incidental expenses. But considering the medical bills at Ex.P.10 and the prescription at Ex.P.8, court below had granted Rs.5,520/- towards medical expenses and towards conveyance, nursing care, nourishment and towards other incidental expenses an amount of Rs.2,000/- was granted. Towards inconvenience, discomfort and loss of future amenities, an amount of Rs.35,000/was granted. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimant is before this court.
2.1. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant
submits that as per the evidence of the doctor, the claimant had sustained 21% partial permanent disability to the heel . Learned counsel further submits that the court below has not considered all these aspects and has not granted any
amount. It is further submitted that under the head of pain and suffering the compensation that was awarded by the tribunal was not reasonable. Even under the heads of nourishment, transport and attendant charges very meager amounts were granted by the tribunal.
2.2. Learned counsel submits that because of the injuries the claimant could not attend his job for 8 months, that aspect was also not considered by the tribunal. Under the head loss of amenities only an amount of Rs.35,000/- is granted. He submits that the same is on lower side. Learned counsel submits his argument stating that the compensation that was awarded by the tribunal is not just and reasonable.
nursing care, nourishment and other incidental expenses, court below had rightly granted compensation.
3.1. Learned counsel submits that when the
claimant had suffered injury fracture of clavicle, there is no question of disability. The court below had rightly disbelieved the same and granted an amount Rs.35,000/- under the head of loss of amenities, which is a reasonable compensation. It is submitted that no grounds are made out for enhancement of compensation. The claimant had sustained a injury to the clavicle, which was operated and implants were fixed and later implants were also removed. Considering the injuries sustained by the claimants, this court deems it appropriate to grant an amount of Rs.40,000/- under the heads of 'pain and sufferings' . When it comes to the 'medical expenses' the court has rightly granted an amount of Rs.5,520/- which is as per bills and receipts placed before the court below. Coming to the future medical expenses, the court has not granted any amount as evidence of doctor was silent in this regard and
further by that time implants were also removed. As such, this court finds no reasons to interfere. Coming to the head of ' extra nourishment, transport and attendant , considering the injuries and the period of recovery, this court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.15,000/- under these three heads. Then coming to the head of disability, the court below had rightly considered the same and held that the there is no disability but however, considering the discomfort, granted an amount of Rs.35,000/-. In the considered opinion of this court that an amount of Rs.35,000/- is on the lower side and an amount of Rs.50,000/- would be a just and reasonable compensation. Under the head of ' loss of earning ' during laid up period, considering the salary slip of November, court has observed that there is no loss of earning and no evidence is placed. Though no evidence is placed, considering the injuries sustained by him, it will take minimum 2 months for the claimant to resume back to his work as his income per
NC: 2023:KHC:38573 MFA No. 1017 of 2017
month is Rs.13,750/-, for two months he is entitled for an
amount of Rs.27,500/- .
Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala Vs.M.Malathi and
another1 , the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards ' legal expenses '.
compensation under the following heads:
| Heads | Com A |
pensation warded |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Pain and suffering | : | Rs. | 40,000/- |
| 2. | Medical expenses | : | Rs. | 5,520/- |
| 3. | Nourishment, transport, attendant | : | Rs. | 15,000/- |
| 4. | Loss of earning | : | Rs. | 27,500 |
| (13,750X2) | ||||
| 5. | Discomfort and amenities | : | Rs. | 50,000/- |
| 6. | Legal expenses | : | Rs. | 10,000/- |
| TOTAL | : | Rs. | 1,48,000/- |
1 (2014) 11 SCC 178
company submits that the court below has granted interest
at 9% which is on the higher side. Hence, the whole compensation awarded shall carry 6% per annum instead of 9%. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed-in-part , enhancing the
compensation amount from Rs.62,520/- to Rs.1,33,000/-. The whole compensation amount shall carry interest @ 6% instead of 9% p.a., awarded by the tribunal.
i) The whole amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
ii) The respondent - insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is
NC: 2023:KHC:38573 MFA No. 1017 of 2017
entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.
iii) 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.
iv) No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/JUDGE
BH
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for personal injury and amenity loss was sufficient to justify enhancement.
Whether the interest rate of 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal below should be reduced.
Whether compensation for loss of earning should be granted in the absence of specific evidence regarding salary slips.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V. Mekala v. M. Malathi and anotherApplied¶4
V.Mekala Vs.M.Malathi and another
RANGAMAANAR S/O. LATE RAJAMAANAR
C.R. PRASANNA KUMAR
THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
