Partly allowed

Raju S/O Late Venkatesh v. Divisional Manager

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2023MFA/4427/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed part of a First Appeal in a motor accident case. The court enhanced the compensation from Rs.30,000 to Rs.1,00,000/- by adding amounts for pain and suffering, loss of income, disfigurement, transport, attendant expenses, and legal fees.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- with interest; Respondent-Insurance Company directed to deposit the amount.

Raju S/O Late Venkatesh Vs Divisional Manager — Medical Negligence | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:37550 MFA No. 4427 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4427 OF 2012

(MV-I)

BETWEEN:

RAJU

S/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶11

R/AT I STAGE, 6TH CROSS, I STAGE, HEBBAL BANGALORE

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. PRAKASH H.C.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

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

¶15

AND:

¶16

DIVISIONAL MANAGER

¶17

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD., OFFICE NO 1134, PRINCE OF VALES ROAD, NEAR BALLAL CIRCLE, CHAMARAJAPURAM MYSORE - 570 005

¶18

RAMESH

¶19

S/O CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS HOUSE NO 462, TEMPLE ROAD, NEW EXTENSION, BELAVADI MYSORE

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:37550 MFA No. 4427 of 2012

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.RAVISH BENNI., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 - NOTICE D/W V/O DTD: 25.08.2015)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED22.07.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.212/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MYSORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

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

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This is an appeal filed by the claimant aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.212/2009 dated 22.07.2011 on the file of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Mysore.

¶28

The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.7,55,000/- and the court below had granted compensation globally of an amount of

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:37550 MFA No. 4427 of 2012

¶30

Rs.30,000/-. It is the case of the claimant that on 17.03.2009, he had been to Dinakadamma Temple along with his wife on his motor cycle. At about 1.15 p.m when they were proceeding near the land of Gopal, Bannamgadi village, Pandavapura Taluk, a lorry came from Bannamgadi village in a rash and negligent manner and while overtaking the claimant’s vehicle dashed to the claimant motor cycle. As a result, the claimant and his wife fell down and they sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately he was shifted to K.R. Hospital, Mysore and he was admitted as inpatient for one week, thereafter he had taken treatment at Adithya Hospital and spent huge amount for treatment. The court below observing that as per Ex.P-7 wound certificate, he had sustained 6 injuries. Injury No. 1,3,4 and 5 are simple in nature and injury No. 2 and 6 are grievous in nature and granted the global compensation of an amount of Rs.30,000/-.

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:37550 MFA No. 4427 of 2012

¶32

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that

¶33

he had sustained six injuries. Out of that four injuries are

¶34

simple in nature and two injuries are grievous in nature. The court below without considering all other aspects had only granted compensation of an amount of Rs.30,000/globally. Learned counsel submits that photographs were filed as Ex.P-11 and Ex.P-12. Learned counsel had drawn the attention of this court to the exhibits and submits that there is disfigurement. It is submitted that the court below had failed to consider all these aspects and granted meagre amount of Rs.30,000/-. Hence the claimant is entitled for reasonable compensation and the said compensation needs to be enhanced.

¶35

Learned counsel for the insurance company

¶36

submits that the except marking the documents i.e., Ex.P1 to Ex.P-12 and examining himself as PW-1, the claimant had not examined the doctor and the Tribunal had rightly granted the compensation of Rs.30,000/-. He submits that

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:37550 MFA No. 4427 of 2012

¶38

claimant had failed to make out any grounds for enhancement of the compensation.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsels on either

¶40

side, perused the entire material on record. This court had perused the wound certificate Ex.P-7. As per Ex.P-7 he had sustained 6 injuries. The wound certificate disclosed that injuries No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 are simple in nature and 2 and 6 are grievous in nature. Coupled with Ex.P-7, this court has also seen Ex.P-11 and Ex.P-12, the photographs shows that there is disfigurement. Considering two grievous injuries and four simple injuries he sustained, he is entitled for an amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain and suffering . Having sustained six injuries, two grievous, it would take at least two

¶41

months for him to recover and to resume his work. According to the claimant, he is a mason and he is earning an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month. As this accident has taken place in the year 2009, considering the income at Rs.4,500/-, for two months, this court in

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:37550 MFA No. 4427 of 2012

¶43

inclined to grant an amount of Rs.9,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period . Towards disfigurement an amount of Rs.21,000/- and under the head of Transport, Attendant and extra nourishment

¶44

another amount of Rs.10,000/- is granted.

¶45

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

¶46

Supreme Court in the case of V. MEKALA -vs- M. MALATHI AND ANOTHER¹ , the claimant is entitled for

¶47

an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses . Altogether the claimant is entitled for an amount Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶48

7. The claimant is entitled for compensation under the following heads:

¶49

Sl.	Description of Items	C	ompensation
No.			Awarded
1.	Pain and suffering	Rs.	50,000/-

¶50

1 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶51

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:37550 MFA No. 4427 of 2012

¶52

2.	Loss of Income during laid up period	Rs.	9,000/-
3.	Disfigurement	Rs.	21,000/-
4.	Transport, attendant & extra nourishment	Rs.	10,000/-
5.	Legal Expenses	Rs.	10,000/-
	Total	Rs.	1,00,000/-

¶53

Accordingly the appeal is Allowed-in-part by enhancing the compensation from an amount of

¶54

Rs.30,000/- to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

(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.

¶58

(d) No Costs

¶59

¶60

NC: 2023:KHC:37550 MFA No. 4427 of 2012

¶61

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶62

stand closed.

¶63

SD/JUDGE

¶64

TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Raju S/O Late Venkatesh v. Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju S/O Late Venkatesh v. Divisional Manager

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

Ayub Khan Vs Sri Katriyesan

Mahadevaiah Vs H M Devaraju

Sri Arun Kumar Shetty Vs Sri Syed Zainulla Bussin Daniyal

Master Harish S/O Late Shivaraj Vs the Divisional Manager

Smt H S Manjula Vs S Murugesh

Smt R S Sarvamangalamma Vs Sri Ramachandra H K