Partly allowed

Mr.Anoop C v. Mr.Mario Pereira

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2023MFA/4604/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Vaishik Appeal in part, enhancing the Motor Accident Compensation award. The Court reassessed the percentage of disability from 10% to 15% based on medical evidence and the claimant's profession, leading to an increased compensation for loss of future earning capacity. The total enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,76,793 along with interest was awarded.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,76,793 along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition.

Mr.Anoop C Vs Mr.Mario Pereira — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:20464 MFA No. 4604 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4604 OF 2016 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. ANOOP.C., AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O. APPU KUTTAN, R/O. CHERUKUTTY HOUSE, B.T.R. ESTATE, BEYPORE POST, CULCUT KERALA – 573 111.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

MR. MARIO PEREIRA MAJOR, S/O. P. PEREIRA, PAULO TRAVELS, 2/1, RACE CROSS ROAD, OPP. JANTHADALA OFFICE, MADHAVA NAGAR, BANGALORE – 563 301.

¶13

THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE: MADGAON, REP BY DIVISIONAL OFFICE: UDUPI, SRI. RAM ARCADE UDUPI - 572 101.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:20464 MFA No. 4604 of 2016

¶16

MR. SHEIK AHAMAD MAJOR, S/O. MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN, R/O. KOTEWADA,SHATGERI, ANKOLA TALUK,

¶17

UTTARKANNADA DIST – 550 111.

¶18

BRANCH MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD, UDUPI – 572 011.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. R. JAI PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 04.03.2021, NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH; SRI. ASHOK. N. PATIL ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶21

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.03.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.835/12 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & MACT, UDUPI (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA) KUNDAPURA, 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

The present appeal is filed by the

¶25

appellant/claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 30.03.2016 in MVC.No.835/2012 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge and Addl. MACT, Udupi (sitting at Kundapura) at Kundapura, for seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:20464 MFA No. 4604 of 2016

¶27

¶28

The factum of accident is not in dispute.

¶29

Heard the arguments from both sides and

¶30

perused the records.

¶31

The Tribunal has granted compensation

¶32

under various heads as follows:

¶33

1.	Towards pain and sufferings	Rs. 60,000.00
2.	Towards loss of income during treatment.	Rs. 40,000.00
3.	Towards medical expenses	Rs. 1,22,000.00
4.	Towards loss of future income	Rs. 1,72,000.00
5.	Towards loss of future income prospectus	Rs. 25,000.00
6.	Towards conveyance, attendant food and miscellaneous expenses.	Rs. 20,000.00
	Total	Rs. 4,39,800.00

¶34

From the medical evidence on record, it is

¶35

proved that the claimant had suffered fracture of femur to both right and left leg of the claimant. The claimant is the medical practitioner by profession. He was getting salary of Rs.15,354/- per month as per Ex.P.35-salary certificate.

¶36

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:20464 MFA No. 4604 of 2016

¶37

Ex.P.35 is the letter issued by the company showing that the claimant was terminated from service due to the injuries suffered in the accident as the claimant is not able to work as a medical practitioner. The work of medical practitioner needs extensive travelling and requires some physical strength. But as per the evidence of doctor, it is proved that the muscle strength of right leg was reduced and it is shortened by 2 inch compared to left leg and there is reduction of movement of right leg and right ankle. Therefore, the doctor had stated that the claimant had suffered permanent physical disability at 28% towards right leg, but the Tribunal has taken the disability at 10% to the whole body.

¶38

But considering the nature of injuries sustained

¶39

and disability suffered as above stated, and by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another¹ , it is just and proper to take 15% as functional disability 1 (2011) 1 SCC 343

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:20464 MFA No. 4604 of 2016

¶41

affecting the earning capacity of the claimant as the claimant was terminated from service. The claimant is aged 24 years as per the SSLC marks card, therefore, the appropriate multiplier applicable is “18”. Therefore, the compensation under the head loss of earning capacity due to disability is reassessed and quantified as follows:

¶42

Rs.15,354/- x 15% x 18 x 12=Rs.4,97,469/-

¶43

Accordingly, compensation of Rs.4,97,469/- is

¶44

awarded under the head loss of future income due to disability.

¶45

The compensation of Rs.92,124/-

¶46

(Rs.15,354/- pm., x 6 months) is awarded under the head

¶47

loss of income during treatment period.

¶48

8. The compensation awarded under other heads

¶49

is found to be just and proper and the same are kept in tact.

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:20464 MFA No. 4604 of 2016

¶51

¶52

Thus, in all the appellant/claimant is entitled to

¶53

total compensation determined by this Court as follows:

¶54

1.	Towards sufferings	pain and	Rs. 60,000.00	Kept in tact
2.	Towards income treatment	loss of during period	Rs. 92,124.00
3.	Towards expenses	medical	Rs. 1,22,000.00	Kept in tact
4.	Towards future inco disability	loss of me due to	Rs. 4,97,469.00
5.	Towards future prospectus	loss of income	Rs. 25,000.00	Kept in tact
6.	Towards c attendant miscellane expenses.	onveyance, food and ous	Rs. 20,000.00	Kept in tact
		Total	Rs.8,16,593.00

¶55

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of

¶56

Rs.4,39,800-, but the appellant/claimant is entitled to total

¶57

compensation of Rs.8,16,593/- . Hence, the

¶58

appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.3,76,793/- (Rs.8,16,593/Rs.4,39,800/-)

¶59

Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced

¶60

NC: 2023:KHC:20464 MFA No. 4604 of 2016

¶61

¶62

compensation of Rs.3,76,793/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶65

ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 30.03.2016 in MVC.No.835/2012 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge and Addl. MACT, Udupi (sitting at Kundapura) at Kundapura, is modified to the extent that the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.3,76,793/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶66

iii. No order as to costs.

¶67

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:20464 MFA No. 4604 of 2016

¶68

iv. The other observations and findings of the Tribunal are kept in tact.

¶69

v. Draw award accordingly.

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Mr.Anoop C v. Mr.Mario Pereira

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Anoop C v. Mr.Mario Pereira

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

Divisional Manager Vs Rakshith B S

M/S Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Shiva Kumar

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Honnappa

M/S Royal Sundaram Aliance Vs Giridhara Srinivas

Sri K.G. Suresh Vs Sri Narasimha Murthy

Mr Jayaram Shetty Vs Mr Santhosh