Partly allowed

Sannamma v. Mallikarjun K

Karnataka HC21 Dec 2023MFA/6853/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation awarded to a motor accident victim, rejecting the respondent's argument that a treating doctor was not examined. The court awarded Rs. 2,64,800 based on injuries, disability, and future loss of income, granting interest and directing insurance deposit.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 2,64,800 with interest at 6% p.a.; insurance company to deposit within eight weeks.

Sannamma Vs Mallikarjun K — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:46940 MFA No. 6853 of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6853 OF 2019 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SANNAMMA,

¶9

W/O LATE DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT BHOVI COLONY, MADENURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH N.D, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MALLIKARJUN K,

¶14

S/O LATE SIDDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶15

R/A NO.3714/6, PARISHRAMA,

¶16

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

¶17

M.C.C-'A', BLOCK, SRI VINAYAKA TEMPLE CROSS, DAVANAGERE TOWN. (R.C. OWNER OF THE VEHICLE HONDA BEARING NO.REG. KA-17-EL-5004)

¶18

THE MANAGER

¶19

UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE 2A, 2ND FLOOR, 84-RAMSON COMPLEX, P.B ROAD, HOSUR, HUBLI - 580 021. (POLICE NO.2312/53617266/02/000

¶20

VALID FROM 22/11/2015 TO 21/11/2016)

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 20.03.2020 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH )

¶23

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:46940 MFA No. 6853 of 2019

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.199/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPTUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

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

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Aggrieved by the award passed in

¶28

M.V.C.No.199/2017 dated 31.10.2018 by the Senior Civil

¶29

Judge and JMFC, Tiptur, the claimant is before this Court

¶30

seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶31

2. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of

¶32

an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. As per the wound certificate the claimant had sustained fractures like Tenderness over left shoulder and left hip. Fracture of left shoulder at lateral end of left clavicle, fracture of body and internal romenes of left public bone, fracture of 3rd number

¶33

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:46940 MFA No. 6853 of 2019

¶34

vertebra and other injuries all over the body. The Doctor, who is not a treated Doctor had assessed the disability at 48%. The Court below had observed that the claimant had not produced any document to show that the claimant had taken 20 days treatment as inpatient in the hospital and also not produced any document to show that Rs.50,000/- was spent towards medicine. The Court below has disbelieved the evidence of PW.2 relying on the judgment of this Court in the MANAGING DIRECTOR NWKRTC VS. FAKHIRAPPA¹ The Court having disbelieved the evidence of the Doctor, who is not the treated Doctor has granted a global compensation of an amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶35

When the matter came up before this court on 20.12.2023 there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. Today also there is no representation on behalf

¶36

1 ILR 2008 KAR 2796

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:46940 MFA No. 6853 of 2019

¶39

of the appellant as this is an appeal of 2019 this court is proceeding with two weeks.

¶40

Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company submits that as the treated Doctor was not examined and the Court below relying on the judgment of this Court has disbelieved the evidence of the Doctor and has granted global compensation of an amount of Rs.40,000/and no grounds are made out for enhancement of compensation.

¶41

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company, perused the material on record.

¶42

In this case, no doubt the Doctor who had examined the claimant was not the Doctor who treated the claimant, that itself cannot be a ground to disbelieve the entire

¶43

evidence. This Court has perused the wound certificate. As per the wound certificate the claimant had sustained

¶44

three fractures and hence under the head of 'pain and

¶45

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:46940 MFA No. 6853 of 2019

¶46

suffering' this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.60,000/- and when it comes to medical expenses, no evidence is placed on record as such, the Court had not granted any compensation. The claimant sustained many injuries and fractures and was admitted in the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.5,000/towards medical expenses. Then coming to the 'loss of income during laid up period' : according to the claimant himself he was earning monthly income of Rs.6,000/hence, considering the same for four months, the claimant would be entitled for an amount of Rs.24,000/(Rs.6,000/-x4). Towards attendant, nourishment and transport - an amount of Rs.15,000/- is granted . Then coming to the evidence of the Doctor, according to the Doctor, the claimant had suffered 48% disability. He has not given any calculation with regard to disability to the whole body, on what basis he has arrived at such conclusion, but at the same time just because that explanation is not given, totally the Court cannot discard the evidence of the Doctor. Considering the wound

¶47

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:46940 MFA No. 6853 of 2019

¶48

certificate and the injuries sustained by the claimant, this Court is inclined to take 20% as the disability and the loss of future income would come to Rs.1,00,800/(Rs.6,000 x 12 x 7 x 20/100), towards loss of amenities this Court is granting an amount of Rs.50,000/-.

¶49

In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M. MALATHI AND ANOTHER² , the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses.

¶50

Accordingly the claimant is entitled for the following compensation:-

¶51

1	Pain and suffering Rs.	60,000/-
2	Medical expenses Rs.	5,000/-
3.	Loss of income during laid up period (6,000 x 4) Rs.	24,000/-

¶52

2 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶53

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC:46940 MFA No. 6853 of 2019

¶55

4	Attendant, Nourishment and Transport	Rs. 15,000/-
5.	Loss of amenities	Rs. 50,000/-
6.	Legal expenses	Rs. 10,000/-
7.	Loss of future Income (Rs.6,000/- x 12 x 7 x 20/100	Rs.1,00,800/-
	Total	Rs.2,64,800/-

¶56

i) Accordingly, the Appeal of the claimant is allowed-in-part , by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.2,64,800/-.

¶57

ii) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶58

iii) The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

¶59

iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of

¶60

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:46940 MFA No. 6853 of 2019

¶61

the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶62

v) No costs.

¶63

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶64

SD/JUDGE

¶65

NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT: BHK

Sannamma v. Mallikarjun K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sannamma v. Mallikarjun K

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

Smt. Kalleshappa @ Kallesh Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Jeson Saldanha Vs Arun D Souza

B R Sadananda Vs B M Chandra

Sri William Dayakar Vs M/S Devan Estate

Sri. Ravi Vs Girish D S

Sharadhamma Vs Pushpa Mangalamma