Partly allowed

Smt. N.P. Padma W/O S. Manjunath v. Smt. Kavitha M. W/O Mohan Velu V.M.

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2023MFA/3439/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded in a motor vehicle accident case. The court recalculated future earning capacity using a higher disability percentage and multiplier, and granted additional amounts for medical expenses and maintenance, allowing the appeal in part with an increase from Rs.1,48,000 to Rs.2,57,240.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.1,48,000 to Rs.2,57,240 with additional Rs.1,09,240 plus interest at 6% per annum from filing of petition.

Smt. N.P. Padma W/O S. Manjunath Vs Smt. Kavitha M… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:20788 MFA No. 3439 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3439 OF 2015 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. N.P. PADMA W/O S. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O CHANDGALU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI. SANJEEV B L., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. KAVITHA M. W/O MOHAN VELU V.M. AGE: MAJOR, VIKAS III BLOCK END OF DASAPPA LAYOUT RAMAMURTHYNAGARA BANGALORE - 560 016

¶14

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANZ INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., I FLOOR, SORRENTO BUILDING LATICE BRIDGE ROAD, ADIYAR CHENNAI - 600 020

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

¶18

R1 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 08.02.2021)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.2.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.722/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:20788 MFA No. 3439 of 2015

¶22

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

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

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 challenging the judgment and award dated 09.02.2016, passed in MVC No.722/2012, on the file of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya, sitting at Srirangapatna, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) seeking enhancement.

¶25

Brief facts:

¶26

On 25.04.2011 at about 6.30 a.m. when appellant -claimant and her father were proceeding in Bullet motor cycle bearing No.CRM-6845 on Mysore-Bangalore main road towards Srirangapatna on the left side of road one car bearing No.KA-53/N-7654 came in a high speed and negligent manner from Mysore side and hit to hind portion of motor cycle, due to which claimant's father fell down along with motor cycle and claimant sustained injury on

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:20788 MFA No. 3439 of 2015

¶28

her right leg, right eyebrow and other parts of body. She was shifted to Government Hospital, Srirangapatna and for further treatment she was shifted to St.Joseph Hospital, Mysore.

¶29

Hence, a claim petition was filed by the appellant under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the petition in part, and awarded compensation of Rs.1,48,000/-, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal held respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein, jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

¶30

Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 – insurance company and perused the materials on record.

¶31

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted

¶32

that the quantum of compensation awarded under various

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:20788 MFA No. 3439 of 2015

¶35

heads is on lesser side. Therefore, seeks for enhancement

¶36

of the compensation.

¶37

On the other hand, the learned counsel

¶38

appearing for the second respondent – insurance company

¶39

submits that the Tribunal is justified in passing the impugned judgment and award and there is no ground for enhancement. That the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal is sufficient and adequate.

¶40

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as follows:

¶41

Pain, Injuries And Suffering	Rs.	35,000/-
Medical Expenses	Rs.	10,000/-
Food, nourishment, attendant and transportation	Rs.	6,000/-
Future medical expenses	Rs.	25,000/-
Loss of income due to permanent disability	Rs.	72,000/-
TOTAL	Rs.	1,48,000/-

¶42

The appellant – claimant was assisting her

¶43

husband in agriculture work and was earning Rs.6,000/-

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:20788 MFA No. 3439 of 2015

¶45

¶46

per month. The appellant – claimant has sustained commuted fractures of lateral medium of lower 1/4^th fibula bone and has undergone operation. Therefore, considering this, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘Injuries, Pain And Suffering’ at Rs.35,000/- is just and proper.

¶47

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/towards ‘Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant Expenses’. Considering the fact that the appellant was admitted in the hospital as inpatient for five days for undergoing operation and the need of follow-up treatment, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- .

¶48

The Tribunal has erred in not awarding any compensation towards ‘Future Medical Expenses’. PW-3 Doctor has deposed that the appellant has to undergo one more surgery in future for removal of implants. Therefore, compensation is enhanced to Rs.35,000/- .

¶49

The Tribunal considering the fact that appellant was assisting her husband in doing agricultural work and

¶50

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:20788 MFA No. 3439 of 2015

¶51

earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month, has taken the notional income of appellant at Rs.5,000/- per month which is on the lower side. Since there is no credible documentary evidence to ascertain the actual monthly income, it would be appropriate and prudent to adopt the monthly income determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which, for the accident of the year 2011, would be Rs.6,500/-.

¶52

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.72,000/- towards ‘Loss of Future Earning Capacity’ by taking 8% as functional disability. Following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj

¶53

Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, the functional disability of claimant is assessed at 13% to the whole body.

¶54

Since the claimant was aged about 35 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma & Others. Vs. Delhi

¶55

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:20788 MFA No. 3439 of 2015

¶56

Transport Corpn And Another reported in AIR 2009 SC

¶57

3104 , is ‘16’. Therefore, the compensation under the head

¶58

‘Loss Of Future Earning Capacity’ is recalculated and quantified as follows:

¶59

Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 13/100 x 16 = Rs.1,62,240/-

¶60

Hence, the appellant is entitled for a total

¶61

enhanced compensation, under various heads as follows:

¶62

Pain, Injuries And Suffering	Rs.	35,000/-
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	Rs.	15,000/-
Medical Expenses	Rs.	10,000/-
Loss of future earning capacity	Rs.	1,62,240/-
Future Medical Expenses	Rs.	35,000/-
TOTAL	Rs.	2,57,240/-

¶63

Therefore, the appellant – claimant is awarded

¶64

a total compensation of Rs.2,57,240/- as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,48,000/-. Hence, the appellant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.1,09,240/- (Rs.2,57,240 –

¶65

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:20788 MFA No. 3439 of 2015

¶66

Rs.1,48,000), along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit.

¶67

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

i. The appeal is allowed in part . ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 09.02.2016, passed in MVC No.722/2012, on the file of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya, (Sitting at Srirangapatna), is modified to an extent that the appellant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.1,09,240/- (Rupees One Lakh Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Only), along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶70