Partly allowed

Sri P L Ramanna v. Eraiah D B

Karnataka HC11 Dec 2023MFA/285/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows the first appeal filed by a Forest Guard against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court enhanced compensation from Rs.1,77,000 to Rs.2,27,000 by adding amounts for future income and increasing grants for pain and suffering, attendant charges, and loss of earned leave.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.1,77,000 to Rs.2,27,000 with 6% interest; directed to be deposited by the respondent within eight weeks.

Sri P L Ramanna Vs Eraiah D B — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:46300 MFA No. 285 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 285 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.P.L RAMANNA, S/O SRI.LATE LAKSHMAIAH, AGE 49 YEARS, OCC: FOREST GUARD, R/O HALEPETE, KANTAPURA, PERIYAPATNA TOWN AND TALUK, MYSORE-571 107.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.SURESH M.LATUR.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

ERAIAH D.B, S/O BHYRAIAH, MAJOR, R/AT D.C.I.BLOCK, KUSHALANAGARA, SOMAWARPETE TALUK, KODAGU DIST-571 236.

¶14

SRI.G.D MANJUNATH, S/O DASAPPA, MAJOR, R/AT GANDHI BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, MOLASOGE POST, SOMAWARPETE TALUK, KODAGU DIST-571 236.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.K.SHANTHARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:46300 MFA No. 285 of 2018

¶18

(VIDE ORDER DATED 01.07.2022 NOTICE TO R2 D/W)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.45/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER MACT, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PERIYAPATNA. PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This is an appeal filed by the claimant aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C.No.45/2014, dated 27.10.2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACT, Periyapatna. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation on an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.

¶23

According to the claimant he was working as a

¶24

Forest Guard and earning an amount of Rs.22,320/-. He had sustained closed both bones forearm fracture right side, left clavicle bone fracture, because of the injuries. In the treatment period he had loss of 84 days of earned leave.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:46300 MFA No. 285 of 2018

¶27

The Court below under the head of pain and suffering has granted an amount of Rs.50,000/-, towards nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges the court has granted an amount of Rs.25,000/-, disability granted an amount of Rs.50,000/-, towards loss of earned leave granted an amount of Rs.12,000/- and loss of amenities granted an amount of Rs.20,000/- and future medical expenses granted an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Altogether, a compensation of Rs.1,77,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal.

¶28

The Learned counsel appearing for the claimants

¶29

submits that he was working as a Forest Guard and as per the evidence of the doctor he had sustained 40% disability to the right knee. The Court had not granted any amount under the head of loss of future earning. It is submitted that for the injuries sustained by the claimant granting only an amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain and suffering is on the lower side. It is submitted that the 40% disability to the right knee would have an impact on his

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:46300 MFA No. 285 of 2018

¶32

future life and the Court ought to have granted the compensation under the head of loss of future income. He

¶33

submits that he had lost 84 days of earned leave and granting an amount of Rs.12,000/- is on the lower side. It is submitted that even under the head of loss of amenity and the future operation the amount that were granted by the Tribunal were not reasonable. He had relied on the

¶34

judgment of the Apex Court in case of Hari Om -VsNational Insurance Co., Ltd., and others¹ . Further relied on another judgment of the Apex Court in case of

¶35

B.Kothandapani -Vs- Tamil Nadu State Trans., Corp.,

¶36

Ltd.,² and submits that though claimant is continuing in the service, the Court below should have considered the disability and should have granted reasonable amount. Hence, he submits that the compensation that was awarded by the Tribunal was not just and reasonable.

¶37

1 2023 ACJ 595 (SC) (DB)

¶38

2 2011 ACJ 1971 (SC) (DB)

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:46300 MFA No. 285 of 2018

¶41

There is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the entire material on record. He was working as Forest Guard and earning an amount of Rs.22,320/-. The Court below has not granted the amount under the head of loss of future income, the Court below had opined that even after the accident he was continuing with the very same job and drawing the salary. The accident had no impact on his future earnings. This Court considering the disability is granting an amount of Rs.75,000/- under the head of future income . Coming

¶43

to the loss of amenities an amount of Rs.20,000/- is granted by the Court below is a reasonable amount. Then coming to the Head of Pain and Suffering considering

¶44

the fractures sustained by him this Court is granting an amount of Rs.60,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. Towards attendant, nourishment and transportation the Court below had granted

¶45

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:46300 MFA No. 285 of 2018

¶46

an amount of Rs.20,000/- which is a reasonable amount.

¶47

Towards loss of earned leave the Court below had granted an amount of 12,000 /- and This is Court is granting an amount of Rs.22,000/-. For the Future medical expenses an amount of Rs.20,000/- is granted

¶48

by the court below which is also reasonable and no interference is called for.

¶49

Further in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M. MALATHI AND ANOTHER³ , the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. Altogether, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.2,27,000/-.

¶50

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

¶51

	Heads	Compensation
		Awarded
1.	Pain and Suffering	: Rs. 60,000/-

¶52

3 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶53

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:46300 MFA No. 285 of 2018

¶54

2.	Towards attendant, nourishment and transportation charges	:	Rs.	20,000/-
3.	Loss of disability	:	Rs.	75,000/-
4.	Loss of earned leave	:	Rs.	22,000/-
5.	Loss of amenities	:	Rs.	20,000/-
6.	Legal Expenses	:	Rs.	10,000/-
7.	Future medical expense	:	Rs.	20,000/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	2,27,000/-

¶55

Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed-in-part , enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.1,77,000/- to Rs.2,27,000/-.

¶56

i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶57

ii) The respondent - 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.

¶58

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:46300 MFA No. 285 of 2018

¶59

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.

¶60

iv) No costs.

¶61

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶62

closed.

¶63

SD/JUDGE

¶64

RMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78

Sri P L Ramanna v. Eraiah D B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P L Ramanna v. Eraiah D B

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

Mr Purushothama Vs Mr Mahabala M

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Mrs C Nandini

Sri. T. M. Sreedhara Vs the Manager

Mohammed Yunus Vs Sri Nagesh

Sri Sundhara Raj C Vs M/S the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Sri. Rudresh Vs the Branch Manager