Partly allowed

Sri. Shankar v. Sri. Riyaz Khan

Karnataka HC31 Oct 2023MFA/5486/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal partly, enhancing the compensation awarded to a motor accident victim from Rs.2,00,510/- to Rs.2,70,310/- by adjusting amounts for pain and suffering, amenities, future medical expenses, and loss of future earning capacity.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.2,00,510/- to Rs.2,70,310/- with interest at 6% per annum except on future medical expenses; Respondent-Insurer to deposit within 8 weeks.

Sri. Shankar Vs Sri. Riyaz Khan — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:38964 MFA No. 5486 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5486 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. SHANKAR S/O GANAPA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NEAR MALYADI MAHADEVI TEMPLE THEKKATTE VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI.NAGARAJA HEGDE.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

SRI. RIYAZ KHAN S/O P MOHIDDIN KHAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT KHAN COMPOUND TALLUR VILLAGE AND POST KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT

¶15

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD BRANCH OFFICE NEAR MASTIKATTE, MASTI TOWER KUNDAPURA KASSABA KUNDAPURA REP BY IT S BRANCH MANAGER

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:38964 MFA No. 5486 of 2017

¶19

(BY SMT. B.S.PADMAJA.,ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶20

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO PERUSING THE RECORDS ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE jUDGMENT AND aWARD DATED 01.12.2015, PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLIAMS TRIBUNAL COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KUNDAPURA IN MVC NO.759/2014 AND AWARD JUST AND RESONABLE COMPENSATION CONSIDERING THE GRAVITY OF THE INJURY, PERMANENT DISABILITIES AND OTHER SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This is an appeal filed by the claimant for

¶24

enhancement of compensation aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.759/2014 dated 01.12.2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Kundapura.

¶25

The claim petition is filed seeking compensation

¶26

of an amount of Rs.6,60,000/- for the injuries sustained

¶27

by the claimant. It is the case of the claimant that on 07.02.2014 at about 9.00 p.m. when the claimant was standing on the mud portion of the road near NH-66 near

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38964 MFA No. 5486 of 2017

¶29

Thekkate, the driver of the offending car driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the claimant, due to the impact he fell down and sustained injuries. As per the wound certificate he had sustained following injuries i.e., one grievous injury and three simple injury

¶30

1. Bone deep laceration leg- exposing the fracture – Left leg is deformed

¶31

2. Swelling on the liac bone

¶32

3. Abrasion on right elbow

¶33

4. Abrasion on right ankle

¶34

The court below under the head of pain and suffering granted an amount of Rs.45,000/-. When it comes to medical expenses, granted an amount of Rs.53,110/-, under the head of food, nourishment and conveyance charges granted an amount of Rs.4,000/-, Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively. Under the head of loss of earning during the laid up period, as it is case of the claimant that

¶35

he was earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- and no evidence was let in, the court had taken Rs.6,000/- as income and

¶36

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:38964 MFA No. 5486 of 2017

¶37

for five months, the court had granted an amount of Rs.30,000/-. When it comes to disability, considering the evidence of the doctor, the court had taken 10% as disability to the whole body, by applying the multiplier had granted an amount of Rs.50,400/- towards loss of future earning capacity. Under the head of loss of amenities and future unhappiness granted an amount of Rs.12,000/-. Towards future medical expenses granted an amount of Rs.10,000/-. Altogether compensation of an amount of Rs.2,00,510/- was granted by the MACT, Kundapura.

¶38

Learned counsel of the claimant submits that he

¶39

had sustained grievous injuries, granting an amount of Rs.45,000/- under the head of pain and suffering is not a reasonable amount. It is submitted that for Transport, attendant and extra nourishment the amount that was granted was not a reasonable amount. Further he submits that when it is his case that he was earning an amount of Rs.10,000/-, the court below had considered an amount of Rs.6,000/- as income, the accident is of the year 2014 and

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:38964 MFA No. 5486 of 2017

¶41

it is on the lesser side. It is submitted that even the disability also was not properly considered by the court below. Under the head of loss of amenities and future medical expenses, amounts that were granted were not reasonable.

¶42

Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the claimant has not adduced any evidence to show that what was his income. When there was no evidence, the court had rightly taken Rs.6,000/- as income. It is submitted that under all other heads the amount that were granted were reasonable. It is submitted that with regard to disability, when the doctor has opined that disability to the particular limb is 16% the court had taken 10% disability to the whole body which is on the higher side. It is further submitted that no grounds are made out for enhancement of the compensation.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:38964 MFA No. 5486 of 2017

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel on either

¶46

side, perused the entire material on record. In this case, the claimant had sustained one fracture injury and three simple injury, for that court below had granted an amount of Rs.45,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, which is a reasonable and adequate amount, this court finds no reasons to interfere with the same. Under the head of medical expenses also an amount of Rs.53,110/- was granted which is a reasonable amount basing on evidence. Under the head of Food, Conveyance and attendant charges, the court below had granted and amount of Rs.4,000/-, Rs.3,000/and Rs.2,000/respectively, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and the pain & suffering, recovery, this court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.15,000/- under above three heads. Coming to the loss of income during the laid up period, court had considered Rs.6,000/- as income.

¶47

This accident has taken place in the year 2014, the said amount is on the lower side. This court is inclined to take Rs.8,000/- as income, for five months, an amount of

¶48

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:38964 MFA No. 5486 of 2017

¶49

Rs.40,000/- is granted under the head of loss of income during the laid up period. Coming to the disability the court below had taken 10%. No appeal is filed by the insurance company and this court is not inclined to interfere with the said finding. Further this court finds force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the percentage has to be enhanced. Hence, considering the disability at 10% and salary at an amount of Rs.8,000/-, loss of future earning due to disability is calculated as Rs.8,000/- x 12 x 7 x 10/100. It comes to

¶50

an amount of Rs.67,200/-. Towards loss of amenities, considering the disability and discomfort the claimant had undergone, the court below had only granted an amount of Rs.12,000/- and this court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.25,000/-. Towards future medical expenses, the court below had granted an amount of Rs.10,000/-, as this is an accident of the year 2014, this court feels it is appropriate to grant an amount of Rs.15,000/- under the head of future medical expenses .

¶51

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:38964 MFA No. 5486 of 2017

¶52

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

¶53

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 . Altogether the claimant is entitled for an amount Rs.2,70,310/-.

¶54

The claimant is entitled for compensation under

¶55

the following heads:

¶56

Sl. No.	Description of Items	C	ompensation Awarded
1.	Loss of income due to disability	Rs.	67,200/-
2.	Medical expenses	Rs.	53,110/-
3.	Pain and suffering	Rs.	45,000/-
4.	Loss of amenities	Rs.	25,000/-
5.	Transport, attendant and extra nourishment	Rs.	15,000/-
6.	Loss of earning during laid up period	Rs.	40,000/-
7.	Future medical expenses	Rs.	15,000/-

¶57

1 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶58

¶59

NC: 2023:KHC:38964 MFA No. 5486 of 2017

¶60

8.	Legal Expenses	Rs.	10,000/-
	Total	Rs.	2,70,310/-

¶61

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is

¶62

Allowed-in-part by enhancing the compensation amount

¶63

from an amount of Rs.2,00,510/- to Rs.2,70,310/-.

¶64

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

¶65

(b) The future medical expenses will not carry any interest.

¶66

(c) Respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the said compensation amount with accrued interest before the tribunal within a period of 8 (Eight) weeks.

¶67

(d) 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.

¶68

(e) No Costs.

¶69

NC: 2023:KHC:38964 MFA No. 5486 of 2017

¶70

10 -

¶71

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶72

closed.

¶73

SD/JUDGE

¶74

TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Sri. Shankar v. Sri. Riyaz Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Shankar v. Sri. Riyaz Khan

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 Kurshad Alam Vs the Manaing Director

B. E. Chandrashekar Vs Thejus

Sri Anand Kumar M Vs the Director

Sri Madhava Vs Sri Santhosh Devadiga

Rangamaanar Vs C.R. Prasanna Kumar

Guru Swamy Vs the Branch Manager