Appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. High Court enhanced compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, directing additional payment to the insured.
Enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,56,320/- plus interest at 6% p.a. directed to be deposited by the Insurance Company within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:25865 MFA No. 7472 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7472 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
NAGARAJU, S/O VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT: NEAR SIDDALAKATTE HULIYAR HOBLI, C N HALLI TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT 1ST CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, TUMKUR TOWN-572 101.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHANTHARAJ K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2023:KHC:25865 MFA No. 7472 of 2017
TUMKUR-572 101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHUBHAM M.N, FOR SRI B C SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED 07.12.2017)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.06.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.811/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the appellant/petitioner is directed
against the judgment and award in MVC No.811/2016 passed by learned II Additional District Judge and MACT, Tumkur, on 06-06-2017, whereby, compensation of Rs.2,34,490/- has been awarded.
Bajaj XCD motor bike bearing Reg.No.KA.44.H. 3747 came
in high speed in a rash and negligent manner from opposite side and dashed against their motor bike and caused the accident. As a result, petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, he was shifted to Government hospital, Huliyar, after first aid, shifted to Adithya Orthopedic Trauma Center, and later to Hemavathi hospital, Tumkur, wherein he took treatment as inpatient for a period of one month by undergoing surgery and incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-.
healthy prior to the accident and was aged 48 years, doing agricultural work and earning Rs.5,00,000/- per annum and due to the accidental injuries he is unable to perform his activities as before. It was further contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor bike bearing Reg.No.KA.44.H.3747 by its rider and the Huliyar police have registered a case in Cr.No.36/2013 against the rider of the said motor bike.
Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said motor bike and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident covering all risks and respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and prayed to award adequate compensation.
the entire averments stated in the claim petition and contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of motor bike bearing Reg.No.KA.06.X. 5245; denied the medical expenses alleged to have been spent by the petitioner. It has also contended that the compensation claimed is on the higher side and driver of the said bike bearing Reg.No.KA.06.X.5245 was not holding valid D.L and the accident occurred due to his own
negligence and in order to over come the same the petitioner has filed a false case against the owner of the 1st respondent. It was further contended that the rider of the insured vehicle was not holding valid D.L and violated the terms and conditions of the policy and hence, it is not liable to pay the compensation. However, admitted the issuance of policy with respect to the motor bike bearing Reg.No.KA.44.H.3747 and that the policy was in force as on the date of the accident and the same was subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, prayed to dismiss claim petition.
NC: 2023:KHC:25865 MFA No. 7472 of 2017
| Pain and suffering | Rs. 30,000/- |
|---|---|
| Medical expenses | Rs. 93,290/- |
| Food and nourishment | Rs. 5,000/- |
| Transportation charges | Rs. 10,000/- |
| Loss of amenities in life | Rs. 25,000/- |
| Loss of future income | Rs. 50,700/- |
| Attendant charges | Rs. 1,000/- |
| Loss of income during laid up period | Rs. 19,500/- |
| Total | Rs. 2,34,490/- |
deceased on the higher and assessment of disability at 5% is not adequate.
tarso metatarsal joint of the left foot and it was treated by
K wire fixation etc. The discharge summary which is produced at Ex.P7 and case sheet at Ex.P11 disclose that the petitioner was inpatient for the period of four days from 3-3-2016 to 7-3-2016. The nature of the treatment appears to be ORIF with K wiring. It was also found that there was deformity in the left foot. The evidence of PW2Dr.Prasad discloses that the petitioner suffer from the disability of 33% to the left lower limb. The disability is on account of the loss of ankle and foot joint movement and the other difficulties arising there from. It has come in the evidence that PW1- petitioner is an agriculturist and is aged about 48 years at the time of the accident. On considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner and the nature of the disability spoken by the PW-2, it is evident that the petitioner would have disability to the left lower limb and it will haunt him for the rest of his life. The disability to the ankle joint of an agriculturist
is definitely going to affect his productivity in his future life. The Tribunal has considered the disability at 5% which appears to be on the lower side. There was no reason for
the Tribunal to hold that disability is 5% even though PW2 has stated that the whole body disability is 11%. The Tribunal has considered the age of the petitioner to be '48 years' which is based on the wound certificate.
of the petitioner at Rs.6,500/- per month. The guidelines issued by the KSLSA for settlement of disputes before the Lok Adalat prescribe a notional income of Rs.9,500/- per month for the year 2016. In umpteen number of decisions and also in the case of Smt. Mariyamma Vs.
Suyambulingam V and another,1 the Division Bench of
this Court has held that the guidelines issued by KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Hence, the loss of future income is calculated as: 9,500/- x 12 x 13 x11% =1,63,020/- by adopting the multiplier of 13 for the age of 48 years.
the head of 'medical expenses' at Rs.93,290/- on the basis
1 MFA No.7404/2014 DD 6-12-2022
of the bills placed on record and it would not call for any interference by this Court.
Rs.10,000/- under the head of 'transportation charges' and a sum of Rs.1,000/- under the head of 'attendant charges' which do not call for any interference by this Court.
award a sum of Rs.35,000/- under this head. Therefore, the compensation is reassessed under different heads as
below which comes to Rs.3,90,810/-
| Pain and suffering | Rs. 50,000/- |
|---|---|
| Medical expenses | Rs. 93,290/- |
| Food and nourishment | Rs. 15,000/- |
| Transportation charges | Rs. 10,000/- |
| Loss of amenities in life | Rs. 35,000/- |
| Loss of future income | Rs. 1,63,020/- |
| Attendant charges | Rs. 1,000/- |
| Loss of income during laid up period |
Rs. 28,500/- |
| Total | Rs.3,90,810/- |
| Less: awarded by Tribunal Enhancement |
Rs.2,34,490/- Rs.1,56,320/- |
the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by awarding enhanced compensation of Rs.1,56,320/- in addition to what has
NC: 2023:KHC:25865 MFA No. 7472 of 2017
been awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
(iii) The respondent No.2-Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within four weeks from today.
(iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal remains
unaltered.
Sd/JUDGE
tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 94
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement.
Whether the disability percentage and notional income used for calculation are correct.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Mariyamma Vs. Suyambulingam V and anotherReferred¶1
Smt. Mariyamma Vs. Suyambulingam V and another, 1
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nagaraju, S/O Venkataramaiah
K Gangadharaiyah, S/O. K M Eswarappa
United India Insurance Company Ltd.
C M Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
C M Joshi
Parties & counsel
