Partly allowed

S Manjunatha v. Sudhakar T M

Karnataka HC3 Oct 2023MFA/2488/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Motor Vehicles claimant's appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. While rejecting payment for lost earnings, the court increased the total compensation to Rs. 2,00,000 based on the severity of injuries and disability, directing the insurer to pay the enhanced amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Allowed in part; total compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment.

S Manjunatha Vs Sudhakar T M — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:35824-DB MFA No. 2488 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.2488 OF 2021 (MV-I)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

S. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.1655, RAMANANDIRA STREET, VIJAYAPURA TOWN - 562 135, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI N.K.SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by D HEMA

¶16

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

SUDHAKAR T. M. S/O MUNIRAJU C AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT THIMMAHALLI VILLAGE BIJJAVARA POST - 562 110, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶18

KEMPEGOWDA S/O ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, BIJJAVARA POST - 562 110,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:35824-DB MFA No. 2488 of 2021

¶21

VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶22

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SBLT BUILDING, POLYTECHNIC ROAD, CHINTAMANI B.O. - 563 125 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3; vide order dated 31.08.2021 NOTICE TO R1 & R2 is dispensed with)

¶25

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED U/S.173(1) OF M.V.ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.01.2021 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.116/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DEVANAHALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, UMESH M ADIGA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:35824-DB MFA No. 2488 of 2021

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This is claimant’s appeal against the judgment and

¶31

award passed by the 5^th Additional District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District sitting at Devanahalli and MACT (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for short) dated 12.01.2012 claiming for enhancement of compensation.

¶32

Brief facts of the case of the claimant are that on 05.06.2019 at about 1.00 p.m., claimant along with his wife was going on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-43-S6699 near Dandiganahalli Village, opposite to H.S.Muniyappa’s garden land, on Bullahalli-Vijayapura Road; wife of the claimant was pillion rider. He met with an accident due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-07-H-6459 by its rider. As a result of which, both claimant as well as his wife had sustained grievous injuries. The claimant had taken treatment in Columbia Asia Hospital, Bengaluru as inpatient from 05.06.2019 to 10.06.2019 and again from 20.10.2019 to 21.10.2019. He underwent surgery. He

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:35824-DB MFA No. 2488 of 2021

¶34

had spent more than Rs.7 Lakhs towards treatment and incidental charges.

¶35

The claimant was aged about 53 years at the time of accident and was serving in Canara Bank, Savakanahalli Gate Branch, Devenahalli Taluk and drawing salary of Rs.49,000/- per month. Due to injuries sustained in the accident, he is suffering from permanent disability and prayed to award compensation of Rs.30,15,000/-.

¶36

The Respondent No.3/Insurer of the motorcycle had filed written statement before the Tribunal denied contents of the claim petition. It is further stated that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the claimant. Therefore, claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The amount of compensation claimed is highly exorbitant. The liability of Respondent No.3 is restricted to terms and conditions of policy of insurance. With these reasons, Respondent No.3 prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:35824-DB MFA No. 2488 of 2021

¶38

From the rival contentions of the parties, the

¶39

Tribunal had framed necessary issues for consideration.

¶40

The claimant, had examined PWs-1 and 2 and

¶41

got marked Exs.P1 to P40. The Respondents had not lead oral or documentary evidence.

¶42

The Tribunal, after hearing both the parties and on appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record, held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of offended motor cycle by its rider and awarded the

¶43

following amount of compensation:

¶44

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount (Rs.)
1	Pain and sufferings	80,000
2	Loss of amenities and comfort	20,000
3	Traveling food, nourishment, attendant charges and other incidental expenses	10,000
	TOTAL	1,10,000

¶45

The Tribunal did not award compensation for

¶46

loss of future earnings due to permanent disability; Since the claimant was permanent employee of Canara Bank.

¶47

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:35824-DB MFA No. 2488 of 2021

¶48

We have heard the arguments of the learned Advocates on both the sides.

¶49

The learned Advocate for the appellant, Shri.N.K.Siddeswara has submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation.

¶50

No amount of compensation is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period. The amount of compensation awarded under the other heads are very meager. The claimant had sustained fractures as mentioned in para-13 of the impugned judgment; However while awarding the compensation, the same is not considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had not awarded incidental expenses. Even the amount of compensation awarded under the head ‘loss of amenities’ is very meager. Hence, prayed for enhancement of compensation.

¶51

The learned Advocate for Respondent No.3/ Insurer, Shri.C.Shankar Reddy submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation and it does not call for any interference. The claimant had

¶52

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:35824-DB MFA No. 2488 of 2021

¶53

not lost his earning either during laid up period or due to alleged permanent disability sustained by the claimant. There are no grounds to interfere in the impugned judgment and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶54

The only question arises for our determination

¶55

is:

¶56

“Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation”?

¶57

It is not in dispute that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-07-H-6459 by its rider and in the said accident, claimant had sustained injuries. The said finding is not challenged by the respondents Hence, there is no need to interfere in the said findings.

¶58

It is not in dispute that claimant is permanent

¶59

official of Canara Bank and was drawing salary as per Ex.P24. It is also not the case of the claimant that he had

¶60

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:35824-DB MFA No. 2488 of 2021

¶61

applied leave, because of which, the salary was deducted or his earned leaves were deducted. Though during the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he had applied for earned leave for three months, but before the Tribunal, he had not produced any document in support of the said submission. Hence, that cannot be considered without relevant documents. Since he is not able to prove that he had sustained any loss of income during laid up period, he is not entitled for the same.

¶62

The injuries sustained by the claimant is referred in para-14 of the impugned judgment. He had sustained seven fractures, underwent surgeries and was admitted as an inpatient. Due to some complications, again he was re-admitted in Columbia Asia Hospital, Bengaluru. He had examined the Doctor to prove his disability. According to evidence of the Doctor, claimant has been suffering from permanent disability to an extent of 44% to the left upper limb and 15% to the whole body.

¶63

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:35824-DB MFA No. 2488 of 2021

¶64

Similarly, he has been suffering from 40% of disability to the face. Considering all these facts, similarly, the period of admission of the claimant in Multispeciality Hospital, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on all the heads

¶65

are on the lower side, which needs to be enhanced.

¶66

The claimant is permanent employee of Canara Bank and his income is not reduced due to the injuries sustained in the accident or disability suffered by him. Hence he is not entitled for the compensation under the head ‘loss of future earnings due to permanent disability’.

¶67

Accordingly, the following amount of

¶68

compensation is awarded to the claimant:

¶69

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount (Rs.)
1	Pain and suffering	1,00,000/-
2	Loss of amenities	70,000/-
3	Food, nourishment charges, etc.,	30,000/-
	TOTAL	2,00,000/-

¶70

The claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation of (Rs.2,00,000-Rs.1,10,000)=Rs.90,000/-.

¶71

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:35824-DB MFA No. 2488 of 2021

¶72

For the aforesaid discussion, we answer the

¶73

above said question partly in the affirmative and pass the following:

¶74

ORDER

¶75

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶76

ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.116 of 2019 dated 12.01.2021 is modified as under:

¶77

a) The claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) as against Rs.1,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and claimant is entitled for enhancement of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till its payment (though in para21, the Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- but in the operative portion of the judgment and award, the amount of compensation is shown as Rs.1,20,000/-, i.e., Rs.10,000/more than what is actually calculated by the Tribunal).

¶78

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:35824-DB MFA No. 2488 of 2021

¶79

b) The Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the said enhanced amount of compensation with interest within a period of four weeks from the date of recept of copy of this judgment.

¶80

c) Deposit and release of the amount are as per the orders passed by the Tribunal.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

S Manjunatha v. Sudhakar T M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Manjunatha v. Sudhakar T M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt C G Geetha Vs State of Karnataka

Sharadamma Vs T S Subramanya

Sri.S.D. Manjunath Vs Sri. Sujay Kumar S.M

Smt Lalitha Vs Kaisar Pasha

Smt. Mallamma Vs Sri Dinesha Naik

The Branch Manager Vs Manjamma