Partly allowed

M/S National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sri K v Ramanajanappa

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2023MFA/1130/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a motor vehicle accident compensation award, the Karnataka High Court modified the total compensation from Rs. 7,81,500 to Rs. 5,24,940. The Court reduced medical expenses, disallowed loss of expectation of life, lowered loss of amenities, and recalculated future loss of income.

What did the court decide?

The total compensation reduced from Rs.7,81,500 to Rs.5,24,940. Excess deposit by insurer recoverable by them. Insurer directed to deposit revised amount within eight weeks.

M/S National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sri K v… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:41660 MFA No. 1130 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1130 OF 2018

¶7

(MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEAR DOOM LIGHT CIRCLE

¶10

KOLAR

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SMT.ARUNA.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI K.V. RAMANAJANAPPA S/O VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶16

R/A JODIKAHCHAHALLI VILLAGE, SIDLAGHATTA TQ

¶17

CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562105

¶18

SMT DYAVAMMA W/O MANJUNATHA S.K. AGED MAJOR, SEETHAHALLI VILLAGE, DIBBURAHALLI (P) NEAR MILK DAIRY SIDLAGHATTA TQ,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:41660 MFA No. 1130 of 2018

¶21

CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562101

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. VEERANNA G. TIGADI.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED25.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.40/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.7,81,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT OF THE PETITIONER.

¶25

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

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This is an appeal filed by the insurance company

¶28

aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and interest granted in MVC No.40/2014, dated 25.09.2017, passed by the MACT, Sidlaghatta.

¶29

The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and the Tribunal has

¶30

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:41660 MFA No. 1130 of 2018

¶31

granted an amount of Rs.7,81,500/-. According to the claimant he had sustained (i) Fracture of tibia and fibula, (ii) Dislocation of radial head (iii) fracture of right ulna (iv) C.L.W. over right leg (v) abrasions over forehead and fore arm. Considering these injuries under the head of pain and sufferings the court below granted an amount of Rs.50,000/-. When it comes to disability the Doctor had deposed that the claimant had sustained 17% disability to the whole-body. But the court below had considered it at 25% and considering the income at Rs.9,000/- had

¶32

granted an amount of Rs.4,59,000/- towards loss of income due to disability. Coming to the loss of earning during the laid up period the court below had granted Rs.12,500/-, towards medical expenses, according to the claimant he had spent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- but however placed bills for an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- but the court below had granted an amount of Rs.1,25,000/-, under other conventional heads i.e., traveling, conveyance, an amount of Rs.10,000/-, towards future medical expenses an amount of Rs.25,000/-, towards loss

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:41660 MFA No. 1130 of 2018

¶35

of expectation of life an amount of Rs.50,000/-, towards loss of amenities an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Altogether compensation of an amount of Rs.7,81,500/- is granted.

¶36

Learned counsel for the insurance company

¶37

submits that when the Doctor had opined that the disability is 17% court below went wrong in taking the disability at 25%. It is submitted that the accident had taken place in the year 2013 and without any evidence the court below had taken Rs.9,000/- as monthly income. Learned counsel submits that the court ought to have taken the income at Rs.8,000/- p.m. It is further submitted that as per medical bills it is Rs.1,10,000/- the court below erred in awarding an amount of Rs.1,25,000/towards medical expenses. Further, under the head of loss of expectation of life when there is no such severe danger to life, the court below ought not to have granted compensation under the said head. It is submitted that for the said disability granting an amount of Rs.50,000/under the head of loss of amenities is also on the higher

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:41660 MFA No. 1130 of 2018

¶39

side. It is submitted that percentage of interest that is granted on the compensation is at 9% which is on the higher side. The court below ought to have granted 6% as interest.

¶40

There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the entire material on record. The claimant had sustained altogether five injuries. The court below had granted Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain

¶41

and suffering which is reasonable and this court finds no reason to interfere. When it comes to the medical expenses , when the evidence shows that the claimant has spent Rs.1,10,000/-, court below erred in granting an amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. Hence, under the head of medical expenses the claimant is entitled for Rs.1,10,000/- . Under the head of loss of earning

¶42

during laid up period an amount of Rs.12,500/- is granted and this court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Under the head of nourishment, conveyance and

¶43

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:41660 MFA No. 1130 of 2018

¶44

transportation an amount of Rs.10,000/- is granted and under the future medical expenses an amount of Rs.25,000/- is granted, which are reasonable and does not call for interference. Coming to loss of expectation in life , in this kind of injuries granting an amount of Rs.50,000/- is not appropriate and the claimant is not entitled for compensation under the said head and this Court is not inclined to grant compensation under the said head. Under the head of loss of amenities the court below had granted Rs.50,000/- considering the injuries

¶45

this Court deems fit to grant an amount of Rs.40,000/-. Coming to the compensation under the head of loss of future income this accident had taken place in the year 2013 the income has to be considered at Rs.8,000/- x 12 x 17% which comes to Rs.2,77,440/-. Altogether the compensation comes to Rs.5,24,940/-.

¶46

The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads:

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:41660 MFA No. 1130 of 2018

¶49

	Heads		Co	mpensation Awarded
1.	Pain and Sufferings	:	Rs.	50,000/-
2.	Loss of Earning during laid up period	:	Rs.	12,500/-
3.	Medical Expenses	:	Rs.	1,10,000/-
4.	Loss of Amenities & Future Discomfort	:	Rs.	40,000/-
5.	Extra-Nourishment, Conveyance	:	Rs.	10,000/-
6.	Future Medical Expenses	:	Rs.	25,000/-
7.	Loss of Future Income due to Disability	:	Rs.	2,77,440/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	5,24,940/-

¶50

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed , by

¶51

reducing the total compensation amount from

¶52

Rs.7,81,500/- to Rs.5,24,940/-.

¶53

i) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. In case there is any excess amount deposited by the insurance company they are at liberty to withdraw the same.

¶54

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:41660 MFA No. 1130 of 2018

¶55

ii) The 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 entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

¶56

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.

¶57

iv) No costs.

¶58

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 134

M/S National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sri K v Ramanajanappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sri K v Ramanajanappa

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

Mahadevaswamy Vs C R Arunkumar

Manjula Vs Jayaram K C

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Yashodamma

Mr Jayarama Shetty Vs Smt Kumudha Shetty

Binay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Vs K Umapathi

L Arunkumar @ Arun Vs Dinesh K