Partly allowed

Dhruvakumar v. Raghu

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2023MFA/4138/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed an appeal to enhance compensation in a motor vehicle accident case. The Court increased the notional income used for calculation, awarded loss of amenities in life, and enhanced consolation and future loss of earning, raising the total award by Rs. 1,32,947/- with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation awarded by Rs. 1,32,947/- with interest; total compensation fixed at Rs. 3,47,551/-.

Dhruvakumar Vs Raghu — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:24472 MFA No. 4138 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4138 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DHRUVAKUMAR, S/O. CHANDREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT MANACHINAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI NINGARAJA M. N., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

RAGHU,

¶12

S/O. BOREGOWDA,

¶13

Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT YAREHALLI VILLAGE, MANACHINAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶15

2. THE MANAGER,

¶16

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PENINSULA, CORPORATE BANK, NICHOLUS PIRMAL TOWER, 9TH FLOOR, GANAPATRAO KADAM MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI - 400 013.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A. FOR SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATES FOR R-2; V/O DATED 23.07.2023, NOTICE TO R-1 IS D/W)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:24472 MFA No. 4138 of 2017

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1727/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC No.1727/2013 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Hassan, on 7-8-2015,the petitioner is before this Court in appeal.

¶25

The petitioner contended that on 3-5-2013 at about

¶26

6.00 p.m. while he was proceeding as a pillion rider with one Udayakumar on the motor cycle to attend electrician work at Kakkehalli, the rider Udayakumar dashed against the car bearing Registration No.KA.05.MH.1385 near Naganna's Farm on Hassan Halebeedu road and caused the accident, wherein, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. The petitioner contended that he was admitted to Hassan Government Hospital and then to CSI Redfern Memorial Hospital, Hassan where he was inpatient for 30 days and he

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:24472 MFA No. 4138 of 2017

¶28

had suffered fracture of both bones of left leg and fracture tarsal bone of left foot. The petitioner contended that he was Electrician by profession and he had income of Rs.15,000/per month and there is permanent disability and therefore, he may be adequately compensated.

¶29

On issuance of notice, respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal and he was placed exparte. The respondent No.2-Insurance company appeared before the Tribunal through its counsel and filed objections contending that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and the terms and conditions of the policy were violated by the rider and therefore, the petition be dismissed. Inter alia, it has denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner.

¶30

On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed necessary issues and petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. The Doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW2 through Commission warrant and Exs.C1 and 2 were marked. The

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:24472 MFA No. 4138 of 2017

¶32

officer of the insurance company was examined as RW1 and

¶33

Exs.R1 to 4 were marked.

¶34

After hearing both the sides and perusing the entire evidence, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the following heads by fastening liability on the insurance

¶35

company:

¶36

Pain and sufferings	Rs. 40,000/-
Medical expenses	Rs. 33,471/-
Future medical expenses	Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of earning during treatment	Rs. 1,333/-
Loss of future earning capacity	Rs.1,18,800/-
Conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges	Rs. 6,000
Total	Rs.2,14,604/-

¶37

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, petitioner has approached this Court in appeal on various grounds.

¶38

On issuance of notice, respondent No.2-Insurance Company has appeared through its counsel and notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with.

¶39

On admitting the appeal, the Tribunal records have been received. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides and perused the records.

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:24472 MFA No. 4138 of 2017

¶41

The learned counsel for appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the notional income considered by the Tribunal needs to be reassessed. It is submitted that the petitioner was inpatient for 30 days and therefore, the compensation under the head of conveyance, nourishment and etc. also needs to be enhanced.

¶42

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submit that there is no need for enhancement and adequate compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶43

A perusal of the impugned judgment and the record shows that the petitioner contended that he was an Electrician by profession and he has suffered fracture of both the bones of left leg and also the fracture of bone in foot. The PW2, after assessment of disability has come to the conclusion that there is 34% disability to the left leg. However, the Tribunal held that there is 11% functional disability to the petitioner and by adopting the notional

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:24472 MFA No. 4138 of 2017

¶45

income at Rs.5,000/- per month, has awarded the compensation.

¶46

The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for settlement of the disputes before the Lok Adalat prescribe the notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month for the year 2013. In umpteen number of decisions, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by KSLSA are held to be acceptable on the ground that they are in general conformity with the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the notional income of the petitioner is accepted as Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, the compensation under the head of loss of future earning is calculated as: 8,000/- x 12 x 18 x 11% = 1,90,080/-. As a consequence, the loss of earning during the laid up period also to be reconsidered. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,333/-. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner could not have resumed his normal activities atleast for a minimum period of three months. Therefore, the loss of amount during the laid up period is calculated as Rs.8,000/- x 3 = 24,000/-.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:24472 MFA No. 4138 of 2017

¶49

Though the petitioner has produced documentary evidence to show that he was inpatient for a period of 30 days, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/- under the head of conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges, which is on the lower side and hence, it is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-.

¶50

The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life. Obviously, the petitioner in view of the injuries sustained would suffer discomfort for the rest of his life and therefore, a token amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded to him under this head.

¶51

As a result, the petitioner is entitled for the total

¶52

compensation of Rs.3,47,551/- under the following heads:

¶53

Pain and sufferings	Rs. 40,000/-
Medical expenses	Rs. 33,471/-
Future medical expenses	Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of earning during treatment	Rs. 24,000/-
Loss of future earning capacity	Rs.1,90,080/-
Conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges	Rs. 30,000
Loss of amenities in life	Rs. 15,000/-
Total	Rs.3,47,551/-
Less: awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.2,14,604/-
Enhancement	Rs.1,32,947/-

¶54

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC:24472 MFA No. 4138 of 2017

¶56

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,32,947/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal together with interest. Hence, the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) The appeal filed by the appellant is *allowed in part .

¶59

(ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of Rs.1,32,947/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶60

(iii) The Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount together with interest within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.

¶61

(iv) The rest of the order of the Tribunal regarding the deposit and etc., remain unaltered.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

tsn*

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 96

¶65

Corrected vide Chamber's order dated 25.09.2023

Dhruvakumar v. Raghu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhruvakumar v. Raghu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmamma @ Jayalakshmamma Vs the Manager

Chandra Mendon Vs Ravindra Naik

Sri Dharmegowda G C Vs the Divisional Controller

Chipili Krishna B M Vs State of Karnataka

The Manager Vs Smt.Sumithra

The Regional Manager Vs B Lakshmi