Partly allowed

Sri v. S Subramaniam @ Subramani v M/S Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2023MFA/7821/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a First Appeal against a Motor Vehicle accident judgment, the High Court allowed the appeal in part. It enhanced the compensation awarded for permanent disability, notional income, and other heads, totaling Rs. 3,67,687, and directed payment of interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 3,67,687/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition.

Sri v S Subramaniam @ Subramani Vs M/S Iffco Tokio… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:23137 MFA No. 7821 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7821 OF 2016 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. V. S. SUBRAMANIAM @ SUBRAMANI, S/O. SWAMY VEL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT. 14, B.NO. 3RD STREET, HALASURU, SHIVAJINAGAR - 560 008.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K.T., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by HARSHITHA B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

M/S. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MOTOR CLAIMS HUB, NO.141, 4TH FLOOR, SRI SHANTHI TOWERS, OPP: CUPA, 3RD MAIN EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, KASTHURINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 043, BY ITS MANAGER.

¶15

MR. MAHESH M., MAJOR, S/O MUNIYAPPA C., 1451, 13TH CROSS, HEGDENAGAR, DR.SRK NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 077.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2, IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 09/07/2019)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:23137 MFA No. 7821 of 2016

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.08.2016. IN MVC.NO.2248/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIII ACMM, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU,PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Heard. Sri. Gurudev Prasad K.T, learned counsel

¶22

appearing for the appellant and Sri. D.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

¶23

The appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated 23.08.2016 passed by the MACT and Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall unit, Bengaluru (SCCH-19) in MVC No.2248/2015 seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶24

The parties in this appeal are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/appellant has submitted his arguments that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:23137 MFA No. 7821 of 2016

¶27

evidence while awarding compensation. The appellant suffered Temporal Contusion, Lacerated wound over left Temporal region and occipital region and further minimal Haemorrhagic contusion in right temporal lobe and was treated at Specialist Hospital, as an in-patient, thereby he has suffered a lot of pain and agony. But the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.25,000/towards pain and suffering. The Learned Judge has failed to note that appellant was in the hospital for 14 days and after discharge, he has taken complete bed rest and also attending the hospital for further check up. The appellant has spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses, but the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,05,285/-. Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards the loss of income during treatment period and also assessed the permanent disability only at 8% which is contrary to the evidence of medical officer and on these grounds, sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶28

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation on all heads. Appellant has not made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and award on

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:23137 MFA No. 7821 of 2016

¶30

¶31

law and facts and on these grounds, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶32

Having heard the arguments on both sides on

¶33

perusal of records, the following points would arise for consideration in this appeal:

¶34

Whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?

¶35

What order or award?

¶36

The findings in above points are under:

¶37

"Point No.1 partly affirmative

¶38

Point No.2 as per final order."

¶39

To substantiate his claim, the petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and examined Dr.Vivekananda.M as PW-2. Petitioner also produced wound certificate Ex.P5 issued

¶40

by the Specialist Hospital, Kalyan Nagar, Bengaluru which reveals that the petitioner was admitted to the hospital on 22.05.2015 and discharged on 04.06.2015 and has sustained the following injuries:

¶41

Temporal Contusion (Right)

¶42

Construal lacerated wound over (left).

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:23137 MFA No. 7821 of 2016

¶45

Doctor has stated that the above injuries are grievous in nature. Ex.P8 is the cash receipts issued by the Specialist Hospital. Medical bills are also produced. PW2 Dr.Vivekananda.M, who has examined the petitioner has deposed in his evidence as to the disability of the petitioner. The Tribunal has assessed the disability to the whole body at 8%. Considering the nature of injuries and the evidence of the doctor, it is just and proper to assess the disability of the petitioner to the whole body at 10% instead of 8%.

¶46

The Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.8,000/- per month. In view of the chart issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, notional income is Rs.9000/- per month for the accidents occurred in the year 2015. Considering the age of the petitioner '13' multiplier is taken by the Tribunal. Hence, the loss of earning capacity would be, (Rs.9000x12x13x10%)=1,40,400/as against Rs.99,840/-.

¶47

With regard to medical expenses is concerned, the petitioner has produced the medical bills and also calculation of memo. Accordingly, the tribunal has awarded Rs.1,05,287/-.

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:23137 MFA No. 7821 of 2016

¶49

¶50

The Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation towards medical expenses.

¶51

Considering the nature of injuries, it is just and

¶52

proper to award the compensation under the following heads:

¶53

Sl.No.	Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
1	Pain and suffering	40,000
2	Attendant charges	10,000
3	Medical Expenses	1,05,287
4	Loss of future income	1,40,400
5	Loss of income duly laid up period	27,000
6	Loss of amenities	15,000
7	Future medical expenses	30,000
	Total	3,67,687

¶54

Accordingly, petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs . 96,562/- (Rs.3,67,687 - Rs.2,71,125). Hence, I pass the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

1. The petition is allowed in part.

¶57

1. Appellant in entitled for compensation of Rs.3,67,687/- as against Rs.2,71,125/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶58

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:23137 MFA No. 7821 of 2016

¶59

1. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶60

1. Draw an Award accordingly.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

PK List No.: 38 Sl No.: 17 CT: ABS

Sri v. S Subramaniam @ Subramani v M/S Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. S Subramaniam @ Subramani v M/S Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri H M Karun Vs M/S SBI General Insurance

General Manager Vs Prakash N

Sri Puttaswamy Vs Sri Umesh

G Srinivas S/O Rangaiah Vs H.D.F.C Egro General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Shantha Vs Kamalamma

Hanumanthegowda Vs the Manager