Partly allowed

Manjula v. Jayaram K C

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2023MFA/3677/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award in an accident case. The High Court enhanced compensation by fixing specific amounts for pain and suffering, future medical expenses, loss of earnings, and other heads, increasing the total award significantly.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced total compensation from Rs.1,72,000 to Rs.2,96,763 payable by Respondent-1 within 8 weeks, with interest at 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount excluding future medical expenses.

Manjula Vs Jayaram K C — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41680 MFA No. 3677 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3677 OF 2019 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MANJULA W/O PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.684 DEVEGOWDA NAGAR THATEKERE POST KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573 201

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SMT. KAVITHA H C.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

JAYARAM K C S/O CHANNEGOWDA MAJOR NO.686, 17TH CROSS K R PURAM HASSAN CITY-573201 (KA-13-N-9915)

¶13

THE MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED #P.B NO.108 2ND FLOOR, VENKATESHWARA COMPLEX B M ROAD HASSAN-573201

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 27.10.2022; BY SRI.A.RAVI SHANKAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R-2 )

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:41680 MFA No. 3677 of 2019

¶18

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02/02/2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.620/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This is an appeal filed by the claimant aggrieved by the award passed in MVC No.620/2018, dated 02.02.2019 by II Additional District & Sessions Court & Additional MACT, Hassan, seeking enhancement of the compensation. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.

¶22

According to the claimant on 22.01.2018 at about 7.30 a.m, when the claimant along with her mother were proceeding by walk, the driver of the offending car

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:41680 MFA No. 3677 of 2019

¶24

drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. As a result she fell down and the tire of the said car ran on her left foot and the claimant sustained injuries on her left foot and all over the body. As per the evidence of the Doctor the claimant has sustained two injuries, among which one injury is a grievous injury. The court below under the head of pain and suffering has granted an amount of Rs.30,000/- and towards medical expenses has granted Rs.43,763/-, Doctor has deposed that she sustained 22% disability to the limb and court below had considered only 7% disability

¶25

to the whole body and considering the income at Rs.9,000/- p.m., had granted an amount of Rs.83,160/towards loss of future earning capacity due to disability. At an amount of Rs.9,000/- was granted towards loss of earning during treatment and attendant charges, towards conveyance charges an amount of Rs.3,000/- was granted, towards nourishment charges an amount of Rs.3,050/was granted. Altogether an amount of Rs.1,72,000/- was awarded.

¶26

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:41680 MFA No. 3677 of 2019

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the claimant

¶28

submits that the court below has failed to consider the income correctly and taken the income at Rs.9,000/- p.m., which is on the lower side. It is submitted that the Doctor had assessed the disability at 22% to the limb, whereas the court below has taken the disability as 7% which is incorrect. Learned counsel further submits that the injuries sustained by the claimant will have an impact on her future life as the claimant is a tailor and injury to the foot will have lot of impact and will affect her life. Even under the head of loss of amenities no amounts were granted and under the head of conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges the amounts that were granted were not reasonable. Learned counsel submits that the compensation that was granted was not just and reasonable.

¶29

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the court below had rightly awarded the compensation basing

¶30

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:41680 MFA No. 3677 of 2019

¶31

on the evidence. It is submitted that as there is no evidence in support of the income the court below had considered the monthly income as Rs.9,000/- and no grounds are made out for enhancement of the compensation.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. In this case the claimant had sustained one simple injury and one grievous injury, for one grievous injury under the head of pain and suffering the court below had granted Rs.30,000/-, which is on lower side and this court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.40,000/- . Then coming to the medical expenses basing on the evidence on record the court below had rightly granted an amount of

¶33

Rs.43,763/- and no interference is called for. The court below has considered the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/- since there was no evidence placed in this regard. This is an appeal of the year 2018, this court is inclined to consider the income at Rs.12,500/- p.m., as

¶34

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:41680 MFA No. 3677 of 2019

¶35

the claimant is a tailor and because of the injuries it will take time to resume her work, three months is taken as laid up period and an amount of Rs.37,500/- (12,500 x 3 months) is granted towards loss of income during laid up period . Coming to the loss of future earning capacity the court below had rightly considered the disability at 7%. Hence, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- (Rs.12,500 x 12 x 11 x 7/100). Under the head of conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.15,000/- . The Doctor has deposed that as the implant was inserted future operation is required which would cost Rs.25,000/-. But the court below had not granted any amount under the said head. Hence, under the head of future medical expenses the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.20,000/- . Considering the injury to the leg and the occupation of the claimant under the head of loss of amenities this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.15,000/-.

¶36

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:41680 MFA No. 3677 of 2019

¶37

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

¶38

Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M. MALATHI AND ANOTHER¹ , the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Legal Expenses .

¶39

7. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the

¶40

compensation under the following heads:

¶41

	Heads	Co	mpensation Awarded
1.	Pain and Suffering	:Rs.	40,000/-
2.	Loss of Earning during laid up period (Rs.12,500 x 3 )	:Rs.	37,500/-
3.	Medical Expenses	:Rs.	43,763/-
4.	Loss of Amenities & Future Discomfort	:Rs.	15,000/-
5.	Loss of future earning due to disability	:Rs.	1,15,500/-
6.	Future Medical Expenses	:Rs.	20,000/-
7.	Legal Expenses	:Rs.	10,000/-
8.	Transport, attendant charge and extra nourishment	:Rs.	15,000/-
	TOTAL	: Rs.	2,96,763/-

¶42

1 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶43

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:41680 MFA No. 3677 of 2019

¶44

8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed ,

¶45

enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.1,72,000/to Rs.2,96,763/-.

¶46

i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, excluding the amount granted under the head 'future medical expenses'.

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

iv) No costs.

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:41680 MFA No. 3677 of 2019

¶51

¶52

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 142

Manjula v. Jayaram K C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjula v. Jayaram K C

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

Mr. Shivakumar H Vs Girish

Sri Sridhar R Vs Smt Jnanamma

Smt. Kavalamma Vs P. John Shekar

Mahadevaswamy Vs C R Arunkumar

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

Mrs Nirmala Vs the Managing Director