Partly allowed

Binay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar v. K Umapathi

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2023MFA/340/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal filed against a motor vehicle accident compensation award. The court enhanced the global compensation from Rs.50,000 to Rs.93,500 by granting amounts for pain and suffering, loss of income, attendant care, transport, and legal expenses.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation from Rs.50,000 to Rs.93,500 with 6% interest from the date of petition.

Binay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Vs K Umapathi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:41855 MFA No. 340 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 340 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BINAY KUMAR @ VINAY KUMAR S/O CHANDRA BHUSHAN OJHA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT 205, SRI SAI SIDHI NILAYA, VINAYAKANAGAR KONENA AGRAHARA BENGALURU - 560 017

¶9

PERMANENT ADDRESS NO 5/05, C B OJHA, AFHPO, DHANGAORTA P S BANYAPRO SELAM

¶10

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

¶11

(BY SRI.ASHWATH C M.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

K. UMAPATHI S/O KANNAN AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO 43, LAKSHMI VILLA, 5^TH CROSS, SRIRAMAPURAM BENGALURU - 560 021 OWNER OF THE VEHICLE

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:41855 MFA No. 340 of 2017

¶17

MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD SM TOWERS, 2^ND FLOOR, 11^TH MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 021

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;

¶20

BY SRI ASHOK N.PATIL .,ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶21

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.261/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This is an appeal filed by the claimant aggrieved by

¶25

the award passed in MVC.No.261/2015 dated 03.10.2016 on the file of XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge & MACT, Bengaluru.

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:41855 MFA No. 340 of 2017

¶27

The claim petition is filed seeking compensation

¶28

of an amount of Rs.7,21,500/- for the injuries sustained

¶29

by the claimant, wherein the Tribunal had granted global compensation of an amount of Rs.50,000/-. It is the case of the claimant that he had sustained following injuries;

¶30

i) Degloving Injury left thigh

¶31

ii) abrasion over forehead

¶32

iii) lacerated wound over lower lip

¶33

iv) abrasion right chest, right elbow, lever abrasion

¶34

v) laceration with degloving injury left thigh

¶35

Out of the five injuries one injury is grievous injury and other 4 injuries are simple in nature and he had spent an amount of Rs.1,44,000/- towards medical expenses. As

¶36

the said medical expenses are reimbursed, the court below had not granted any compensation. It is his case that he is working as a Senior Engineer at Sonavision AETOS Technical Service and earning an amount of Rs.28,500/-

¶37

per month. After the accident, he continued in the company as Senior Engineer and he is paid an amount of

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:41855 MFA No. 340 of 2017

¶40

Rs.41,000/- per month. Considering all these factors, the court below had granted a global compensation of an amount of Rs.50,000/-.

¶41

3. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that

¶42

the court below has failed to grant compensation under other heads and granted compensation globally at an amount of Rs.50,000/-. He submits that under the head of loss of income, pain and suffering for the injuries sustained by him and towards attendant, transport and nourishment, the court below ought to have granted the compensation. He doesn’t dispute the fact that he has not examined the doctor in support of the injuries.

¶43

Learned counsel for the insurance company

¶44

submits that as there was no evidence, except the wound certificate, the court below had rightly granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- as global compensation and no grounds are made out for enhancement of the compensation.

¶45

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:41855 MFA No. 340 of 2017

¶46

Having heard the learned counsel on either

¶47

side, perused the entire material on record. In this case admittedly he had sustained five injuries, out of that one injury is grievous injury. Under the head of pain and suffering he is entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/-.

¶48

Then coming to the loss of income, though the claimant has not adduced any evidence, considering the injuries, this court is inclined to consider the income of one month towards loss of income during the laid up period. Under the said head, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.28,500/-. Towards attendant, transport and extra nourishment, the court below ought to have granted the compensation and this court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.15,000/-.

¶49

In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble

¶50

Supreme Court in the case of V. MEKALA -vs- M.

¶51

MALATHI AND ANOTHER¹ , the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses . 1 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶52

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:41855 MFA No. 340 of 2017

¶53

Altogether the claimant is entitled for an amount

¶54

Rs.93,500/- at 6% interest.

¶55

The claimant is entitled for compensation under

¶56

the following heads:

¶57

Sl. No.	Description of Items	C	ompensation Awarded
1.	Pain and suffering	Rs.	40,000/-
2.	Loss of income during the laid up period	Rs.	28,500/-
3.	Attendant, Transport & extra nourishment	Rs.	15,000/-
4.	Legal Expenses	Rs.	10,000/-
	Total	Rs.	93,500/-

¶58

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is

¶59

Allowed-in-part by enhancing the compensation amount from an amount of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.93,500/-.

¶60

(a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realization.

¶61

¶62

NC: 2023:KHC:41855 MFA No. 340 of 2017

¶63

(b) Respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the said compensation amount with accrued interest before the tribunal within a period of 8 (Eight) weeks.

¶64

(c) The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Record to the Tribunal along with the certified copy of the order passed by this court forthwith without any delay.

¶65

(d) No Costs.

¶66

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶67

closed.

¶68

SD/JUDGE

¶69

TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 114

Binay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar v. K Umapathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar v. K Umapathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahadevaswamy Vs C R Arunkumar

Manjula Vs Jayaram K C

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Yashodamma

M/S National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sri K v Ramanajanappa

Mr Jayarama Shetty Vs Smt Kumudha Shetty

L Arunkumar @ Arun Vs Dinesh K