Partly allowed

Sri. S. Ravindrakumar v. Sri. K. Parameshwara Reddy

Karnataka HC17 Jul 2023MFA/6828/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a miscellaneous first appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court modified the Tribunal's award, enhancing the disability percentage from 50% to 60% and increasing compensation for pain, treatments, amenities, and future loss of income, resulting in an additional award of Rs. 2,29,200 with interest.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed in part; the impugned award was modified to grant an additional Rs. 2,29,200 with interest at 6% p.a. The insurer was directed to deposit the amount within six weeks.

Sri. S. Ravindrakumar Vs Sri. K. Parameshwara Reddy — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:24900 MFA No. 6828 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6828 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI S. RAVINDRAKUMAR, S/O. LATE SHAMAIAH, NOW AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.358, 7TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, YAMALUR, BANGALORE-560 037.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI K. PARAMESHWARA REDDY, S/O. SUNDRA RAMI REDDY, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT NO.16/2/443, 2ND FLOOR, NEAR PETROL BUNK, SRINIVASA AGRAHARA, NELLORE-524 004, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶12

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

¶13

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., M.G ROAD, BENGALURU-01. NOW SHIFTED REGIONAL OFFICE TO 5TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, REP BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED 09.03.2022)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2087/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:24900 MFA No. 6828 of 2017

¶19

BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

By the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal though it is posted for admission and heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides.

¶22

This appeal by the petitioner is directed against the judgment and award in MVC No.2087/2015 passed by learned Member, Principal MACT, Bengaluru dated 08.12.2016, whereby, compensation of Rs.15,26,000/- has been awarded.

¶23

Brief facts that are necessary for the purpose of this

¶24

appeal are that;

¶25

On 03.12.2013 at about 12.30 p.m., the petitioner was proceeding in his car bearing registration No.KA-03/MR-6094 towards Bagepalli on Renugonda Road and near Palasamudram Village, the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-26/X-4599 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner’s vehicle. As a result, the car was damaged and

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:24900 MFA No. 6828 of 2017

¶27

petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Jain Hospital, Bengaluru and thereafter, to other Hospitals and he took treatment as inpatient for considerable length of time by spending more than Rs.10,00,000/- and also he had to spend huge amount towards future treatment.

¶28

Further it was contended that, the petitioner was aged 50 years and he was cultivating his land by growing various vegetables and also he was doing dairy farm having 30 cows and he was earning Rs.75,000/- p.m. The family members were depending on the income of the petitioner. Due to the accidental injuries, he has lost his income and also suffering from discomfort to perform his day to day activities and also suffered permanent disability. It was further contended that the accident in question has occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and the Gorantla Police have registered a case against the driver of the offending vehicle and ultimately, chargesheeted him. The respondent No.1 and 2 being the owner and the insurer, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/-.

¶29

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:24900 MFA No. 6828 of 2017

¶30

In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, despite service of notice, the respondents No.1 remained absent and hence, he was placed ex-parte . The respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed the written statement denying all the petition averments. It has admitted

¶31

the issuance of policy in respect of the Lorry bearing registration No.AP-26/X-4599 and contended that the liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy issued in favour of the owner and in accordance with the provisions of MV Act and also subject to valid and effective driving licence held by the driver of lorry, valid R.C., Permit, F.C. It was further contended that the driver was not having valid driving licence and the owner/insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and hence, it is not liable to indemnify the owner of the insured. Further, it has disputed the nature of injuries suffered in the accident, the treatment taken in the hospital, the amount spent towards medical expenses on account of accidental injuries and the disabilities suffered by the petitioner and also his earnings and that, the claim of the petitioner is exorbitant and fanciful. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:24900 MFA No. 6828 of 2017

¶33

¶34

The Tribunal on the basis of the above pleadings,

¶35

framed appropriate issues. The petitioner was examined as PW.1, one witness was examined as PW.2 and Exs.P1 to P24 were marked in evidence. Respondents have not led any evidence.

¶36

After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal awarded

¶37

compensation of Rs.15,26,000/- under the following heads:

¶38

PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (IN RS.)
Pain and suffering	60,000/-
Loss of future earnings due to disability (Rs.9,000/-x 12 x 8 x 15/100)	6,21,000/-
Medical expenses	7,50,000/-
Conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges and other incidental expenses	25,000/-
Loss of income during the period of treatment (Rs.9,000/-x 3)	40,000/-
Loss of amenities	30,000/-
TOTAL	15,26,000/-

¶39

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award, the

¶40

petitioner has approached this Court in appeal seeking enhancement.

¶41

On issuance of notice, the respondent No.2Insurance Company has appeared through its counsel and

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:24900 MFA No. 6828 of 2017

¶43

notice to respondent No.1 was dispensed with. The Tribunal records have been secured and perused the same.

¶44

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the permanent physical disability vis-à-vis loss of earning capacity at higher than 50% and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of PW.2 in proper perspective. The petitioner had suffered quadriparesis on account of the injury to the spinal cord. Therefore, he submits that the whole body disability as stated by PW.2 to the extent of 78.6% should have been accepted. He also submits that 'loss of amenities in life' should have been on the higher side considering the fact that the petitioner was unable to walk without support, decreased sensation in all the four limbs. He also contended that the notional income of the petitioner should have been held higher than Rs.9,000/- per month as he was an agriculturist cultivating vast extent of the lands.

¶45

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.2 contend that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability at 50% and has considered future prospects at 15% in calculating

¶46

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:24900 MFA No. 6828 of 2017

¶47

the 'loss of future earning'. He contends that the compensation awarded under other heads is also adequate and there is no need for further enhancement.

¶48

The petitioner had sustained laceration over the right parietal area of skull, was unable to actively extend the upper limbs and lower limbs and tenderness over the cervical region of the neck. After diagnostic examination, it was found that there was quadriparesis with C7 compression injury and also was subjected to C7 Laminectomy, decompression of the cord, reduction and posterior fusion. The discharge summaries produced at Ex.P6, show that he was inpatient in the three spells at VIMS Hospital. The description of the treatment is narrated by the Tribunal in para 24 of its judgment.

¶49

The doctor who had examined the petitioner deposed as PW.2 and has narrated the nature of the treatment and the injuries suffered. In para 36 and 37 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal states as below:

¶50

"a) Right lower limb and left upper limb weakness,

¶51

b) Low back pain,

¶52

c) Numbness in left upper and lower limbs

¶53

d) Tightness in abdomen and lower limbs and

¶54

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC:24900 MFA No. 6828 of 2017

¶56

e) Right knee pain

¶57

Based on the complaints posed, he noticed the following:

¶58

1) Walking with support

¶59

2) Weakness of left shoulder

¶60

3) Right him and bilateral toe weakness

¶61

4) Decreased sensations in all the four limbs left more than right

¶62

5) Spasticity, exaggerated reflexes in right lower limb and

¶63

6) Not able to sit squat on the floor, not able to climb stairs and not able to do his routine works.

¶64

37. Upon radiological and clinical examination, he noticed "Pedicle screws from C6 and 2 vertebra with spine alignment maintained"."

¶65

14. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was aged 57

¶66

years at the time of the accident and he was an agriculturist. Indisputably the petitioner cannot work as an agriculturist with

¶67

the above nature of the disabilities. When we juxtapose the avocation of the petitioner and the nature of the disabilities as

¶68

observed above, it appears that the functional disability of the petitioner as assessed by the Tribunal at 50% is on the lower side. PW.2 had stated the disability at 78.6%. It was a neurological disability resulting in quadriparesis. However, the cognitive abilities of the petitioner was not impaired. Hence, in

¶69

the considered opinion of this Court, the functional disability is 60%.

¶70

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:24900 MFA No. 6828 of 2017

¶71

The Tribunal has considered the notional income of

¶72

the petitioner at Rs.9,000/- per month. Relying on the decision in the case of SYED SADIQ VS. UNION INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED¹ and the case of the SANJAY KUMAR VS. ASHOK KUMAR² , the Tribunal assessed the loss of future prospects at 15% by considering the age of the petitioner to be 57 years. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the said conclusions reached by the Tribunal. After considering the future prospects at 15%, the Tribunal held the multiplicand to be Rs.11,500/-. Therefore, 'future loss of income' is calculated as Rs.11,500/- X 12 X 60% X 9 = Rs.7,45,200/- by adopting multiplier of '9' for the age of 57 years.

¶73

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/-

¶74

under the head of 'pain and suffering' which required to be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶75

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,50,000/towards the 'medical expenses'. After elaborated discussion, which do not require any interference. Similarly, the compensation under the head of 'conveyance, food, 1 AIR 2014 SC 1052

¶76

2 2014 ACJ 653

¶77

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:24900 MFA No. 6828 of 2017

¶78

nourishment etc.' at Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal also do no require any enhancement.

¶79

The Tribunal has considered the 'loss of income

¶80

during laid up period' for three months which requires to be enhanced to Rs.60,000/-.

¶81

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/under the head of 'loss of amenities' in life, the petitioner has suffered quadriparesis, which has to suffer for rest of his life. hence, the same needs to be enhanced to Rs.75,000/-.

¶82

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the modified

¶83

compensation under different heads as below:

¶84

PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (IN RS.)
Pain and suffering	1,00,000/-
Future Loss of income	7,45,200/-
Medical expenses	7,50,000/-
Conveyance, food and nourishment etc	25,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period	60,000/-
Loss of amenities in life	75,000/-
TOTAL	17,55,200/-
Less awarded by Tribunal	15,26,000/-
Enhancement	2,29,200/-

¶85

NC: 2023:KHC:24900 MFA No. 6828 of 2017

¶86

11 -

¶87

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.2,29,200/- with interest and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

¶88

ORDER

¶89

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶90

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of Rs.2,29,200/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit.

¶91

(iii) The respondent No.2/Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

¶92

(iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands unaltered.

¶93

Sd/JUDGE

¶94

NR/-

¶95

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71

Sri. S. Ravindrakumar v. Sri. K. Parameshwara Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. S. Ravindrakumar v. Sri. K. Parameshwara Reddy

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

Mr. v Nagaraj Vs Mr. Dinesh Koushik

Sri Ramesh M S Vs Sri Papegowda

Sri Prasanna Vs Boregowda

Smt.Mangamma Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited

The Managing Director B.M.T.C. Vs Sri B v Nithinkumar

Mahalingamma Vs Siddaramaiah