Partly allowed

Sri.Manjunath M v. Smt.Kanthamma

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2023MFA/2425/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Accident Appeal in part. The court enhanced the compensation for loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability and recalculated amenities/conveyance expenses, modifying the Tribunal's award from Rs. 1,65,150 to Rs. 5,09,050, directing the insurance company to pay the difference with interest.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 3,43,900 granted for loss of earning capacity due to disability and modified amenities/conveyance; total award enhanced to Rs. 5,09,050.

Sri.Manjunath M Vs Smt.Kanthamma — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 2425 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2425 OF 2016 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.MANJUNATH M S/O MANIANJINAPPA H AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO E 64/2 PREETHI NAGAR, LAKSHMIDEVI NAGAR BANGALORE – 58.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT.KANTHAMMA W/O NARAYANAPPA R/AT NO 156, KUNDALGURKI SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT

¶14

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NO 28, EAST WING, V FLOOR,CENTENARY BUILDING, M G ROAD, BANGALORE - 1, BY ITS MANAGER

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. H C BETSUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-NOTICE D/W V/O DATED:08/02/2017)

¶17

¶18

MFA No. 2425 of 2016

¶19

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.5163/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

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 26.11.2015, passed in M.V.C.No.5163/2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) for seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶23

Brief facts:

¶24

On 09.11.2014 at about 7.20 p.m., the claimant

¶25

was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-43-E-9325 as a pillion rider towards Suddahalli,

¶26

¶27

MFA No. 2425 of 2016

¶28

Chikkaballapura Taluk on Jadalathimmanahalli

¶29

Thirnanahalli Road. When the motor bike reached near LPG Gas godown, the driver of the LMV / Crane bearing registration No.KA-35-A-8229 came from opposite

¶30

direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations dashed against the motor cycle, due to the said impact, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries.

¶31

Hence, a claim petition was filed by the appellant-claimant under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered in the accident. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,65,150/-, along with interest at 6%

¶32

per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal held respondent Nos.1 to 2 therein, liable to pay the compensation.

¶33

¶34

MFA No. 2425 of 2016

¶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 Suffering	:	Rs.	60,000/-
Loss of Amenities of Life,	:	Rs.	40,000/-
Conveyance, Nourished food and incidental expenses
Medical Bills	:	Rs.	37,150/-
Loss of earning for laid up period	:	Rs.	28,000/-
TOTAL	:	Rs.	1,65,150/-

¶40

As per the Wound Certificate at Exhibit-P5, Discharge Summary and Exhibit-P8, coupled with the evidence of PW-3, Doctor and the documentary evidence, it is proved that the claimant had suffered fracture of both bones of right leg lower 1/3^rd , fracture of right femur. The aforesaid injuries are grievous in nature. The claimant was

¶41

¶42

MFA No. 2425 of 2016

¶43

working as a Housekeeping boy. Therefore, considering this, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘Pain and Sufferings, at Rs.60,000/-, is just and proper and hence kept intact.

¶44

The compensation amount awarded by the

¶45

Tribunal under the ‘ Medical Expenses’ at Rs.37,150/- is per actual bills and receipts and the same is kept intact.

¶46

The Tribunal has not granted compensation

¶47

towards ‘loss of income due to disability’. The claimant was working as Housekeeping boy. He has suffered fracture of femur and tibia and the doctor has assessed 51.39% disability to the particular limb and 25% disability to the whole-body. Even though the doctor who assessed

¶48

the disability is not the treated doctor, he is an Orthosurgeon and qualified doctor. Since the claimant was doing housekeeping work, the same requires manual work, certainly the injuries suffered affects the earning capacity of the claimant. Therefore, the compensation

¶49

¶50

MFA No. 2425 of 2016

¶51

under the head ‘loss of earning capacity due to disability’ is to be granted by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another¹ . Therefore, considering the nature of injuries sustained and the nature of avocation of the claimant, it is just and proper to take 20% of functional disability to the whole-body affecting the earning capacity of the claimant. . The claimant was aged 33 years and the accident has occurred during the year 2014. Therefore, as per Chart of notional income recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, a sum of Rs.8,500/- is to be taken as notional monthly income of the claimant. The appropriate multiplier applicable as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Smt.Sarla

¶52

Verma & Others. Vs. Delhi Transport Corpn And Another² is ‘16’. Therefore, the compensation under the

¶53

1 (2011) 1 SCC 343

¶54

2 AIR 2009 SC 3104

¶55

¶56

MFA No. 2425 of 2016

¶57

head ‘Loss of Earning Capacity Due to Disability’ is

¶58

recalculated and quantified as follows:

¶59

Rs.8,500/- x 20% x 16 x 12 = Rs.3,26,400/-

¶60

In view of the accidental injuries, the claimant

¶61

would have taken rest for atleast for a period of Three months. Therefore, by taking income at Rs.8,500/- per month and calculating the laid up period for Three months, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.25,500/(Rs.8,500 x 3 months) , under the head ‘Loss Of Earning During Laid Up Period’ .

¶62

The Tribunal has committed error in awarding compensation towards ‘ Loss Of Amenities and conveyance, nourished food and incidental expenses’ together at Rs.40,000/-, which is on lower side and hence a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded under the ‘Loss of Amenities’ and Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards ‘ Conveyance, Nourished Food And Incidental Expenses’ .

¶63

¶64

MFA No. 2425 of 2016

¶65

Therefore, in modification of the award of the

¶66

Tribunal, the appellant-claimant is entitled to the following

¶67

compensation:

¶68

Pain and Suffering (kept in tact)	:	Rs.	60,000/-
Loss of Amenities	:	Rs.	40,000/-
Medical Bills	:	Rs.	37,150/-
Conveyance, Nourished food and incidental expenses	:	Rs.	20,000/-
Loss of earning for laid up period	:	Rs.	*25,500/-
*(Rs.8,500 x 3 months)
Loss of income earning capacity due to disability	:	Rs.	3,26,400/-
(Rs.8,500 x 20% x 16 x 12)
TOTAL	:	Rs.	*******5,09,050/-**

¶69

Therefore, the appellant-claimant is entitled for

¶70

compensation of * Rs.5,09,050/- as against Rs.1,65,150/-

¶71

. The appellant – claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of * Rs.3,43,900/( * Rs.5,09,050 –

¶72

Rs.1,65,150) along with interest at 6% per annum from

¶73

*Page no 8 is retyped and replaced vide court order dated 12.04.2023

¶74

¶75

MFA No. 2425 of 2016

¶76

the 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.

¶77

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶78

ORDER

¶79

i. The appeal is allowed in part . ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 26.11.2015, passed in M.V.C.No.5163/2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru 26.11.2015, passed in M.V.C.No.5163/2014, is modified to the aforesaid extent.

¶80

iii. The appellant – claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of * Rs.3,43,900/- (* Rs.5,09,050 – Rs.1,65,150) along with

¶81

*Corrected vide court order dated 12.04.2023

¶82

10 -

¶83

MFA No. 2425 of 2016

¶84

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 11 days, in filing the appeal.

¶85

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

¶86

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.

¶87

vi. No order as to costs.

¶88

vii. Draw award accordingly.

¶89

¶90

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

¶91

Sd/JUDGE

Sri.Manjunath M v. Smt.Kanthamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Manjunath M v. Smt.Kanthamma

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

Mallesh Vs Sunil Chatra

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Jaya Bai @ Jayamma

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Junaid

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mohammed Rafi

Smt H Lakshmidevi Vs Sri Tyagarajan

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Swamy T N