Partly allowed

Jayalaxmamma v. Savitha

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2023MFA/7173/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing the compensation awarded in a motor accident case. The court corrected the notional income calculation based on Karnataka guidelines, adjusted multipliers for loss of future earning due to disability, and added a new head for loss of amenities in life.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation awarded by Rs. 54,400/- comprising corrections for loss of future earning, loss of amenities in life, pain, suffering, and medical expenses, with interest at 6% p.a.

Jayalaxmamma Vs Savitha — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:23597 MFA No. 7173 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7173 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

JAYALAXMAMMA, W/O. JAYAGUNDE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDENT AT: VALALAGERE VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

SAVITHA, W/O. LATE H.B. RAVI, MAJOR, R/A: H HARALAHALLI VILLAGE, SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶15

K.M. SUDARSHAN, S/O. M MARISHETTY, MAJOR, R/A: KAMPALAPURA VILLAGE, PIRIYAPATTNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 107.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:23597 MFA No. 7173 of 2017

¶18

THE MANAGER, H D F C ERGO, GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 6TH FLOOR, LEELA BUSINESS PARK, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI - 40009. REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, H D F C ERGO, GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.110, M.GENEVA HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R3, VIDE ORDER DATED 18/11/22, NOTICE TO R1 AND R2, DISPENSED WITH)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO. 355/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN. 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

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

¶25

learned counsel for the respondent.

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:23597 MFA No. 7173 of 2017

¶27

Though the matter was posted for admission, by

¶28

consent of both the sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶29

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and awarded in MVC. 355/2015 dated 09.02.2017 by V Addl. District & Sessions Court and Addl. MACT, Hassan.

¶30

Brief facts of the case:-

¶31

The petitioner, who is the appellant in the present appeal contends that on 07.03.2014 at about 6.00 a.m, when she was going to her agricultural lands at about 11.00 a.m., while she was walking on the road, the motor cycle bearing No.KA.09.X.7910, owned by respondent no.1, driven by respondent no.2 and insured by respondent no.3 came in a negligent manner and hit the petitioner from back side resulting in injuries i.e., fracture of proximal fibula of the left leg. She was taken to hospital for treatment. It was alleged that she was aged about 60 years, she had permanent disability and as such her income is affected, as such she filed a claim petition before the Tribunal.

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:23597 MFA No. 7173 of 2017

¶33

On issuance of notice, respondent no.1 to 3

¶34

appeared before the tribunal and filed objections. Respondent no.2 contended that vehicle was covered with the insurance policy and therefore respondent no.3 be fastened with the liability.

¶35

The respondent no.3 filed objections contending that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the respondent no.1 and the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law. It was contended that the terms and conditions of the policy was violated by the owner of the vehicle.

¶36

The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW-1 and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12 were marked. The doctor who assessed the disability was marked as PW-2. The respondent no.3 examined its official as RW-1 and Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 were marked. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.55,000/- to the petitioner under following heads:

¶37

Sl.No.	Nature of the heads	Compensation amount
1.	Pain and suffering	Rs.15,000=00

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:23597 MFA No. 7173 of 2017

¶40

2.	Towards Medical expenses	Rs.7,000=00
3.	Loss of earning during treatment	Rs.1,000=00
4.	Loss of future earning due to disability	32,000=00
	Total	Rs.55,000=00

¶41

Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the

¶42

petitioner has approached this court in appeal.

¶43

On issuance of notice, the respondent no.3 has appeared before this Court through its counsel. Notice to respondent no.1 and 2 was dispensed with.

¶44

The learned counsel for the appellant submit that the Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation to the petitioner and it has not considered the income of the petitioner in the right perspective and the compensation under the head of pain and suffering, amenities in life are also to be reassessed by this Court.

¶45

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the compensation awarded is just, proper and correct and there is no need for enhancement.

¶46

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:23597 MFA No. 7173 of 2017

¶47

The fact that there was an accident involving the motor cycle belonging to respondent no.1 and 2 and insured by respondent no.3 is not in dispute. So also, the fact that the petitioner had sustained injuries in the accident being upheld by the Tribunal is also not in dispute. The Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the petitioner as Rs.6,000/per month, though the accident had taken place in the year 2014. The guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Services authority for the disposal of cases before the Lok-Adalat prescribe the notional income of Rs.8,500/- for the year 2014. In umpteen number of decisions, this court had held that the guidelines issued by KSLSA are in general conformity with wages fixed under Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the notional income of the petitioner has to be considered at Rs.8,500/- per month.

¶48

The PW-2 has stated in his evidence, that that petitioner suffers disability of 5% on account of fracture of proximal fibula of the left leg. Therefore the loss of future income is calculated as Rs.8,500/- x 12 x 5% x 9 = Rs.45,900/- by adopting multiplier of 9 for the age of 60 years.

¶49

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:23597 MFA No. 7173 of 2017

¶50

Consequently, the compensation under the head of

¶51

loss of income during the laid up period has to be enhanced. Therefore, the loss of income during the laid up period needs to be enhanced to Rs.8,500/-.

¶52

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/under the head of pain and suffering, the same needs to be enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss amenities in life. Hence, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,000/- towards medical expenses including conveyance, nourishment etc. In the considered opinion of this court, the said quantum needs to be enhanced to Rs.10,000/-.

¶53

Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the total compensation under the following heads:

¶54

Sl.No.	Nature of the heads	Compensation amount
1.	Pain and suffering	Rs.30,000=00
	Towards Medical expenses
2.	including conveyance and	Rs.10,000=00
	nourishment
3.	Loss of amenities in life	Rs.15,000=00

¶55

¶56

NC: 2023:KHC:23597 MFA No. 7173 of 2017

¶57

4.	Loss of earning during treatment	Rs.8,500=00
5.	Loss of future earning due to disability	Rs.45,900=00
	Total	Rs.1,09,400=00
	Less compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.55,000=00
	Addl. Compensation Awarded	Rs.54,400=00

¶58

Hence, the following order:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part.

¶61

ii. The petitioner-appellant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.54,400/- in addition to compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit before the Tribunal. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly.

¶62

iii. Conditions in respect of the fixed deposit remains unaltered.

¶63

iv. Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

JUDGE

¶66

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 87

¶67

Jayalaxmamma v. Savitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayalaxmamma v. Savitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Harischandra Vs Mr Yogish K

Roopendra. H. H. Vs the Manager

Sridhar G L Vs Prakash Kajjuragi

Sugappa S/O Late Mahadevappa Ors. Vs Shivaramakka W/O Late Basawaraj

Mahboob Sab @ Mohammed Mahimood Sab Vs Peersab S/O Khaja Hussain Sab Ors.

Shekar S/O Hanumanthappa Malapur Vs Manikappa S/O Hanumanthappa Malapur