Partly allowed

Rukiyabi v. Mohammad Parvej

Karnataka HC24 Jan 2023MFA/1171/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the appellant's appeal partly against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court enhanced compensation for disability, loss of earning during laid-up period, food/attendants, and amenities, directing the insurer to pay the additional amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,64,760/- including Rs. 69,760/- additional; insurer directed to pay within eight weeks with interest at 6% per annum.

Rukiyabi Vs Mohammad Parvej — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 1171 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1171 OF 2016 (MV-DM)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RUKIYABI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS W/O LATE MEERA SAHEB, R/O HONNALA, HARADI BOKKA PATNA, BRAHMAVARA, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-576101.

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SMT. SWATI G., HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)

¶11

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

¶12

AND:

¶13

MOHAMMAD PARVEJ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O SAMSHIDDIN SAHEB, R/O JUMMA MASJID ROAD, BASRUR, BASRUR VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK-576101.

¶14

UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., CITY TRADE CENTRE 1ST FLOOR, OPP: CITY HOSPITAL KADRI,

¶15

¶16

MFA No. 1171 of 2016

¶17

MANGALORE-575001. REP BY ITS MANAGER

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. H.N. KESHAVAPRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DTD 28/11/17 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

¶20

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.05.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.428/13 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI & ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’ for

¶24

brevity) by the appellant–claimant, calling in question the judgment and award dated 15.05.2015, passed in M.V.C.No.428/2013, on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udupi, (hereinafter referred to

¶25

¶26

MFA No. 1171 of 2016

¶27

as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) for seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶28

Brief facts:

¶29

On 10.02.2013, the claimant, along with others

¶30

were travelling in an auto bearing registration No.KA-20C-1830, which was driven by the owner himself in high speed, rash and negligent manner from Brahmavara to Honnala side. When it reached near Kukkude Cross, Haradi Village, Udupi Taluk, the driver lost control and auto tumbled down to the gutter. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries.

¶31

Hence, a claim petition was filed by the claimant under Section-166 of the M.V.Act, claiming compensation for the injuries in the road traffic accident. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part, and awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,95,000/-, along with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal

¶32

¶33

MFA No. 1171 of 2016

¶34

held respondent Nos.1 to 2 therein, liable to pay the compensation.

¶35

4. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the

¶36

appellant-claimant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 – insurance company and perused the materials on record.

¶37

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

¶38

as follows:

¶39

Pain and Sufferings	: Rs.	45,000/-
Medical Expenses	: Rs.	80,000/-
Nourishment, Conveyance and Attendant Charges	: Rs.	7,000/-
Loss of Income Due	: Rs.	8,000/-
Disability	: Rs.	30,000/-
Loss of Amenities	: Rs.	25,000/-
TOTAL	: Rs.	1,95,000/-

¶40

As per the Wound Certificate at Exhibit-P4, Discharge Summary at Exhibit-P8, coupled with the

¶41

¶42

MFA No. 1171 of 2016

¶43

evidence of PW-4, Doctor and the documentary evidence,

¶44

it is proved that the claimant had suffered the following injuries:

¶45

i) Fracture of neck of right humerus, ii) L3 compression fracture, iii) Open Head Injury

¶46

The aforesaid injuries are grievous in nature.

¶47

The claimant was inpatient in hospital two days. She has undergone surgery of right shoulder. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries sustained the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘Pain and Suffering’ at Rs.45,000/- is appropriate and hence kept intact.

¶48

The compensation amount awarded by the

¶49

Tribunal under the ‘ Medical Expenses’ at Rs.80,000/- is per actual bills and receipts and the same is kept in tact.

¶50

The Tribunal has awarded compensation towards ‘Food, Nourishment, Conveyance and

¶51

¶52

MFA No. 1171 of 2016

¶53

Attendant Charges’ at Rs.7,000/-, which is on lower side

¶54

and hence a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under the said head.

¶55

The Tribunal has held the income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/- per month, which is on lesser side. The claimant was aged 57 years and the accident has occurred during the year 2013. Therefore, as per Chart of notional income recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, a sum of Rs.8,000/- is to be taken as notional monthly income of the claimant. The Doctor PW-2 had stated the claimant had suffered 20% disability of right upper limb due to the fracture to the shoulder. The claimant may not be able to do the work as he was doing prior to the accident. The criteria for calculating functional disability is elaborately discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another¹ Therefore, considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra, and the 1 (2011) 1 SCC 343

¶56

¶57

MFA No. 1171 of 2016

¶58

injuries suffered by the appellant and the avocation of the appellant-claimant being coolie, certainly the disability will affect her earning capacity. Accordingly, 8% 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 ‘7’. Therefore, the compensation under the head ‘Loss of Earning Capacity Due to Disability’ is recalculated and quantified as follows:

¶59

Rs.8,000/- x 8% x 7 x 12 = Rs.53,760/-

¶60

The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head

¶61

Disability at Rs.30,000/- is set-aside and accordingly, Rs.53,760/- is awarded .

¶62

In view of the accidental injuries, the claimant would have taken rest for atleast for a period of Two months. Therefore, by taking income at Rs.8,000/- per

¶63

2 AIR 2009 SC 3104

¶64

¶65

MFA No. 1171 of 2016

¶66

month and calculating the laid up period for Two months, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.16,000/(Rs.8,000 x 2 Months) , under the head ‘Loss Of Earning During Laid Up Period’ .

¶67

The Tribunal has awarded compensation

¶68

towards ‘ Loss Of Amenities’ at Rs.25,000/-, which is on lower side and hence a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the said head.

¶69

Therefore, in modification of the award of the Tribunal, the appellant-claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶70

Pain and Sufferings(Kept in tact)	: Rs.	45,000/-
Medical Expenses(Kept in tact)	: Rs.	80,000/-
Food, Nourishment, Conveyance and Attendant Charges	: Rs.	20,000/-
Loss of Amenities	: Rs.	50,000/-
Loss of future income due to disability (Rs.8,000 x 8% x 7 x 12)	: Rs.	53,760/-
Loss of earning during laid up	: Rs.	16,000/-

¶71

¶72

MFA No. 1171 of 2016

¶73

period (Rs.8,000 x 2 months) TOTAL : Rs. 2,64,760/-

¶74

Therefore, the appellant-claimant is entitled for

¶75

compensation of Rs.2,64,760/- as against Rs.1,95,000/-. The appellant – claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.69,760/(Rs.2,64,760 –

¶76

Rs.1,95,000) 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. The Insurance

¶77

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.

¶78

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

i. The appeal is allowed in part .

¶81

ii. The impugned judgment and award dated

¶82

15.05.2015, passed in M.V.C.No.428/2013, on

¶83

10 -

¶84

MFA No. 1171 of 2016

¶85

the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udupi is modified to the aforesaid extent.

¶86

iii. The appellant – claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.69,760/(Rs.2,64,760 – Rs.1,95,000) 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. However, the appellant-claimant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 169 days, in filing the appeal.

¶87

iv. Respondent No.2 – insurance company shall pay the compensation to the

¶88

appellant/claimant.

¶89

v. 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.

¶90

11 -

¶91

MFA No. 1171 of 2016

¶92

vi. No order as to costs.

¶93

vii. Draw award accordingly.

¶94

Sd/JUDGE

¶95

JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Rukiyabi v. Mohammad Parvej

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukiyabi v. Mohammad Parvej

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

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mohammed Rafi

Smt H Lakshmidevi Vs Sri Tyagarajan

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Swamy T N

Smt Puttamma Vs Swaminathan P

Sri. Jay Lingu Vs Ravindra

I.B.Basavaraj Vs K Ashok