Partly allowed

Sri Puttaswamy v. Sri Umesh

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2023MFA/281/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge disposed of connected miscellaneous first appeals. Claims filed by accident victims seeking enhancement of compensation were partly allowed. appeals filed by the insurance company challenging liability were dismissed based on prior binding precedents.

What did the court decide?

Inter connected motor accident compensation petitions update 2023 compensation totals increasing from $285,000 to $341,000 and $387,000 respectively.

Sri Puttaswamy Vs Sri Umesh — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:21060 MFA No.281 of 2015 C/W MFA No.2654 of 2014 MFA No.2655 of 2014 MFA No.282 of 2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.281 OF 2015 C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2654 OF 2014 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2655 OF 2014 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.282 OF 2015 (MV-I)

¶8

MFA NO.281 OF 2015

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI PUTTASWAMY S/O KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.670, SWARNASANDRA, MANDYA CITY.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

Digitally signed by HARSHITHA B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI. H.N. RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI UMESH

¶16

S/O LATE ESWARACHARI, NO.6, C.N.DASARAJU BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, ANEKERE STREET, MANDYA CITY-571 432

¶17

UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:21060 MFA No.281 of 2015 C/W MFA No.2654 of 2014 MFA No.2655 of 2014 MFA No.282 of 2015

¶20

NO.201-208, CRYSTAL PLAZA, LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (WEST), MUMBAI-400 058.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.06.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.247/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & CJM, MACT, MANDYA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

MFA NO.2654 OF 2014

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., NO.7/3, K.V.D. TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR, OPP. 100 FEET ROAD, OLD MADRAS ROAD, INDIRANGAR, BANGALORE-560038. REPRESENTED BY TIS LEGAL MANAGER.

¶27

…APPELLANT

¶28

(BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI., ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

NAGARAJU

¶31

S/O.KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O.YELACHAKANAHALLY, KOTHATHI HOBLI,

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:21060 MFA No.281 of 2015 C/W MFA No.2654 of 2014 MFA No.2655 of 2014 MFA No.282 of 2015

¶34

MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶35

UMESH

¶36

S/O.LATE ESWARACHARY, NO.56, C.N.DASARAJU BUILDING, 1ST FLOR, ANEKERE STREET, MANDYA.

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. H.N. RAMESH, ADVOCATE R2 SERVED)

¶39

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.06.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO. 246/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM AND MACT, MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,85,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. OUT OF TIME.C.F. SUFFICIENT.

¶40

MFA NO.2655 OF 2014

¶41

BETWEEN:

¶42

UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., NO.7/3, K.V.D. TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR, OPP. 100 FEET ROAD, OLD MADRAS ROAD, INDIRANGAR, BANGALORE-560038. REPRESENTED BY TIS LEGAL MANAGER.

¶43

…APPELLANT

¶44

(BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI., ADVOCATE)

¶45

AND:

¶46

PUTTASWAMY S/O.KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O.YELACHAKANAHALLY,

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:21060 MFA No.281 of 2015 C/W MFA No.2654 of 2014 MFA No.2655 of 2014 MFA No.282 of 2015

¶49

KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶50

UMESH S/O.LATE ESWARACHARY, NO.56, C.N.DASARAJU BUILDING, 1ST FLOR, ANEKERE STREET, MANDYA.

¶51

…RESPONDENTS

¶52

(BY SRI. H.N. RAMESH, ADVOCATE R2 SERVED)

¶53

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED7.6.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.247/2010 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM, MACT, MANDYA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.2,90,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A OUT OF TIME.

¶54

MFA NO.282 OF 2015

¶55

BETWEEN:

¶56

SRI NAGARAJU

¶57

S/O KARIOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT YELECAKANAHALLY MANDYA TALUK

¶58

MANDYA DISTRICT

¶59

…APPELLANT

¶60

(BY SRI. H.N. RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

¶61

AND:

¶62

SRI UMESH S/O LATE ESWARACHARI NO.6, C N DASARAJU BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR ANEKERE STATE

¶63

¶64

NC: 2023:KHC:21060 MFA No.281 of 2015 C/W MFA No.2654 of 2014 MFA No.2655 of 2014 MFA No.282 of 2015

¶65

MANDYA CITY-571432

¶66

UNIVERSAL SAMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD NO. 201-208, CRYSTAL PLAZA LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (WEST) MUMBAI-400058

¶67

…RESPONDENTS

¶68

(BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE)

¶69

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED07.06.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.246/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & CJM, MACT, MANDYA PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶70

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶71

J U D G M E N T

¶72

The challenge in these Appeals is to the Common Judgment and award dated 07^th June, 2013 passed in MVC No.247 and 246 of 2010 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandya (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').

¶73

Miscellaneous First Appeals No.281 of 2015 and 282 of 2015 are filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation; Miscellaneous First Appeals No.2654 of 2014

¶74

¶75

NC: 2023:KHC:21060 MFA No.281 of 2015 C/W MFA No.2654 of 2014 MFA No.2655 of 2014 MFA No.282 of 2015

¶76

and 2655 of 2014 are filed by the Insurance Company challenging the liability.

¶77

Learned Counsel for appellant/claimants submitted that the Tribunal has not properly awarded the compensation on all heads and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and not in accordance with law and hence sought for enhancement of compensation. Further, as regards liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the Insurance Company has filed Miscellaneous First Appeals No.10907, 10908, 10909, 10910 and 10911 of 2012 and the same were disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 17^th December, 2014 and as against the said judgment, the Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal. The Division Bench of this Court has upheld the judgment passed by the Tribunal as to the liability of the Insurance Company and hence, he sought for dismissal of appeals preferred by the Insurance Company.

¶78

Learned counsel for claimants has produced the certified copy of the Judgment dated 17^th December, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Miscellaneous

¶79

¶80

NC: 2023:KHC:21060 MFA No.281 of 2015 C/W MFA No.2654 of 2014 MFA No.2655 of 2014 MFA No.282 of 2015

¶81

First Appeal No.10907 of 2012 and connected matters. At paragraphs 7 to 10 of the judgment, the Division Bench observed as under:

¶82

" 7. The owner of the vehicle who has been examined as RW-2 in detail has deposed that even before he could purchase the vehicle in question, the deceased Rajendra was working as a taxi driver and he has seen his driving and while appointing him as a driver, he has seen the driving license possessed by Rajendra and it is his specific case that Rajendra use to carry the driving license along with the vehicle documents whenever he used to take the vehicle on heir and it is his further case that in the instant case, the driving license of the deceased is lost. Therefore, he is unable to produce the same.

¶83

8. To controvert the evidence of RW-2, the appellant-insurance company has not placed any evidence. Therefore, we are of the view that Rajendra is not alive, it is difficult for any court to expect the owner of the car to produce the driving license of the deceased. Normal practice is that when a driver is appointed, the owner of the vehicle would verify whether the driver possesses a driving license or not. Normally a copy of the driving license will not be maintained by the owner of the vehicle if he has only one car with him. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the tribunal is justified in fixing the liability on the insurance company.

¶84

¶85

NC: 2023:KHC:21060 MFA No.281 of 2015 C/W MFA No.2654 of 2014 MFA No.2655 of 2014 MFA No.282 of 2015

¶86

9. We could have appreciated the arguments of Sri.P.B.Raju, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant for not producing the documents provided Rajendra was alive. He was the best person to say whether he had possessed the driving license or even if he had lost the original driving license, he would have got the duplicate driving license from the RTO office.

¶87

10. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. "

¶88

Sri Ravi S. Samprathi, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, fairly submitted that the appeals filed by the Insurance Company before the Division Bench in MFA No.10907 of 2012 and connected appeals (supra) came to be dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 17^th December, 2014 and the Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal against the said judgment passed by the Division Bench. With regard to enhancement of compensation is concerned, it is submitted that the Tribunal has properly awarded the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeals filed by the claimants.

¶89

¶90

NC: 2023:KHC:21060 MFA No.281 of 2015 C/W MFA No.2654 of 2014 MFA No.2655 of 2014 MFA No.282 of 2015

¶91

Having heard the arguments on both sides and on

¶92

perusal of record, the following points would arise for consideration in these appeals:

¶93

(1) Whether the Claimants have made out grounds for enhancement of compensation?

¶94

(2) Whether the Insurance Company has made out a ground to interfere with the judgment and award as to the liability of the Insurance Company?

¶95

(3) What Order?

¶96

My answer to the above points are as under:

¶97

Point No.1: Partly in the affirmative;

¶98

Point No.2: Negative;

¶99

Point No.3: As per final order.

¶100

Regarding Point No.1:

¶101

Miscellaneous First Appeal No.281 of 2015 is arising

¶102

out of MVC No.247 of 2010. To substantiate the claim of the

¶103

claimant, the claimant examined himself as PW2 and has marked fourteen documents as Exhibits P1 to P14. He has

¶104

NC: 2023:KHC:21060 MFA No.281 of 2015 C/W MFA No.2654 of 2014 MFA No.2655 of 2014 MFA No.282 of 2015

¶105

10 -

¶106

deposed in his evidence that after the accident, he has taken first-aid at Tanjore Medical College and thereafter, got admitted to KIMS Hospital, Bangalore and spent Rs.1,50,000/- towards and Rs.40,000/- towards other expenses and he require Rs.50,000/- for future medical expenses.

¶107

The petitioner has produced Exhibit P10-Wound

¶108

certificate wherein the following injuries are mentioned:

¶109

Diffuse swelling over left hip;

¶110

swelling and tenderness over left ankle;

¶111

Sutured would over left parieto-occipital region;

¶112

Abrasion would over the upper limbs.

¶113

Doctor has opined that injuries 1 and 2 are grievous and injuries 3 and 4 are simple in nature. Exhibit P11 is 43 prescriptions; Exhibit P12 is 83 medical bills for Rs.2,10,596.45; and Exhibit P13 is three Radiologists reports. There is no disability and the appellant/claimant has not adduced any evidence and considering all these aspects, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation as under:

¶114

11 -

¶115

NC: 2023:KHC:21060 MFA No.281 of 2015 C/W MFA No.2654 of 2014 MFA No.2655 of 2014 MFA No.282 of 2015

¶116

Sl.No.	Head	Amount in Rs.
1.	Pain and suffering	20,000
2.	Grievous injuries	50,000
3.	Simple Injuries	10,000
4.	Nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges	10,000
5.	Medical expenses	2,00,000
	Total	2,90,000

¶117

Perusal of the judgment would reveal that though

¶118

the claimant has produced medical bills for Rs.2,10,596.45, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses

¶119

and has not assigned reasons for reducing the medical expenses. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of amenities and future unhappiness. Considering the nature of injuries and the pain and agony the claimant has undergone, so also, considering the fact that the claimant has taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 27 days, I am of the opinion that it would be just and proper to award compensation as follows:

¶120

12 -

¶121

NC: 2023:KHC:21060 MFA No.281 of 2015 C/W MFA No.2654 of 2014 MFA No.2655 of 2014 MFA No.282 of 2015

¶122

Sl.No.	Head	Amount in Rs.
1.	Pain and suffering	30,000
2.	Grievous injuries	50,000
3.	Simple Injuries	10,000
4.	Nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges	20,000
5.	Medical expenses	2,11,000
6.	Loss of amenities and future unhappiness	20,000
	Total	3,41,000
	Less amount awarded by Tribunal	2,90,000
	Enhanced compensation	51,000

¶123

Miscellaneous First Appeal No.282 of 2015 arise out of MVC No.246 of 2010. To substantiate his claim, the claimant has examined himself as PW1 and in his evidence he has deposed that he has taken first aid at Tanjore Medical Hospital and thereafter he has taken further treatment at KIMS and Jayadeva Hospitals, Bengaluru and at Vikram Hospital, Mysore and Mandya and he was under treatment as an inpatient from 31^st December, 2019 till 08^th January, 2010 and spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.40,000/- for further expenses. The claimant has produced Exhibit P4 wound certificate wherein the following injuries are mentioned:

¶124

Tenderness over right side of chest region

¶125

Tenderness over L1, L2 spine region;

¶126

13 -

¶127

NC: 2023:KHC:21060 MFA No.281 of 2015 C/W MFA No.2654 of 2014 MFA No.2655 of 2014 MFA No.282 of 2015

¶128

Sutured wound over the scalp. 4 cms.

¶129

Doctor has opined that the injuries 1 and 2 are

¶130

grievous and injury No.3 is simple in nature. Claimant has produced Exhibit P5 34 prescriptions; Exhibit P6 66 medical bills for Rs.2,11,971.31 and Exhibit P7 report of Vikram Hospital and Exhibit P9 discharge summary. Claimant has not adduced any evidence as to disability. There is a fracture of 6^th and 7^th ribs of right side and also fracture over the spinal region; and considering the injuries and fractures, the Tribunal has awarded compensation as under:

¶131

Sl.No.	Head	Amount in Rs.
1.	Pain and suffering	20,000
2.	Grievous injuries	50,000
3.	Simple Injuries	5,000
4.	Nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges	10,000
5.	Medical expenses	2,00,000
	Total	2,85,000

¶132

Though the claimant has produced 66 medical bills

¶133

as per Exhibit P6 with 34 prescriptions as per Exhibit P5 amounting to Rs.2,11,971.31, the Tribunal has not awarded the entire amount and has not assigned any reasons for not

¶134

14 -

¶135

NC: 2023:KHC:21060 MFA No.281 of 2015 C/W MFA No.2654 of 2014 MFA No.2655 of 2014 MFA No.282 of 2015

¶136

awarding the said amount. The Tribunal has also not awarded compensation towards loss of amenities and future unhappiness. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant and the medical bills, it is just and proper to awarded compensation under the following heads as follows:

¶137

Sl.No.	Head	Amount in Rs.
1.	Pain and suffering	75,000
2.	Grievous injuries	50,000
3.	Simple Injuries	10,000
4.	Nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges	20,000
5.	Medical expenses	2,12,000
6.	Loss of amenities and future unhappiness	20,000
	Total	3,87,000
	Less amount awarded by Tribunal	2,85,000
	Enhanced compensation	1,02,000

¶138

Accordingly, the point No.1 that arose for consideration in these appeals is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the claimants.

¶139

Regarding Point No.2:

¶140

As regards to the point No.2 that arose for consideration as to whether the Insurance Company has made out a ground to interfere with the judgment and award as to

¶141

15 -

¶142

NC: 2023:KHC:21060 MFA No.281 of 2015 C/W MFA No.2654 of 2014 MFA No.2655 of 2014 MFA No.282 of 2015

¶143

the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, as stated above, Sri Ravi S. Samprathi, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has fairly submitted that the Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal against the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.10907 of 2012 and connected appeals. In that view of the matter, the same is binding on both parties. In the light of judgment of the Division Bench (supra), the appeals filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed, accordingly dismissed.

¶144

For the aforestated reasons, I proceed to pass the following:

¶145

Miscellaneous First Appeals No.2654 of 2014 and 2655 of 2014 preferred by the Insurance Company are dismissed;

¶146

Miscellaneous First Appeals No.281 of 2015 and 282 of 2015 filed by the claimants are partly allowed by enhancing the compensation to Rs.3,41,000/- and Rs.3,87,000/- respectively as

¶147

16 -

¶148

NC: 2023:KHC:21060 MFA No.281 of 2015 C/W MFA No.2654 of 2014 MFA No.2655 of 2014 MFA No.282 of 2015

¶149

against Rs.2,85,000/and Rs.2,90,000/-

¶150

awarded by the Tribunal;

¶151

The enhanced compensation carries interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization;

¶152

All other conditions regarding apportionment and disbursal of the compensation amount shall be as per the order of the Tribunal;

¶153

The amount if any in deposit, be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶154

Registry to draw award accordingly.

¶155

Sd/JUDGE

¶156

LNN

¶157

List No.: 38 Sl No.: 19

Sri Puttaswamy v. Sri Umesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Puttaswamy v. Sri Umesh

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 Divisional Manager Vs Anu @ Linga Shetty

Sri. Om Prakash Takur Vs the Reliance Gen. Ins Co. Ltd.

Santosh K R S/O Karabasappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H M Karun Vs M/S SBI General Insurance

General Manager Vs Prakash N

G Srinivas S/O Rangaiah Vs H.D.F.C Egro General Insurance Co. Ltd.