Partly allowed

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

Karnataka HC20 Dec 2023MFA/8112/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the first appeal in part, enhancing the accident compensation awarded to a injured mason. The court increased amounts for loss of amenities and added compensation for the laid-up period and legal expenses per Supreme Court precedent, raising the total claim.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation from Rs.3,17,335/- to Rs.3,59,335/- with interest at 6% p.a. directed to be deposited by the insurance company within eight weeks.

Smt. Kalleshappa @ Kallesh Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance… — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:46650 MFA No. 8112 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8112 OF 2019 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. KALLESHAPPA @ KALLESH, S/O LATE SHIVANANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.61, 7TH CROSS, NAGARAJ BUILDING, GARUDACHARYAPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 048.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. ADARSH R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRAMODA GOWDA T P, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2ND FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX, NO.89, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIWALA, BANGALORE - 560 068. (INSURER OF VEHICLE ALTO CAR BEARING NO.KA-07-M-7530. POLICY NO.3001/MI/03895731/00/000 VALID FROM 02.08.2016 TO 01.08.2017

¶13

G. SURESH BABU, S/O M. GOVINDAPPA, #81, HUNKUNDA VILLAGE AND POST, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 161.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:46650 MFA No. 8112 of 2019

¶16

(OWNER OF THE VEHICLE ALTO CAR BEARING NO.KA-07-M-7530)

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE NOT YET ORDERED IN RESPECT OF R2)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.12.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.3744/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SCJ AND XIX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-23), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C.No.3744/2017 dated 17.12.2018 by the XXI

¶23

Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-23) at Bengaluru, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:46650 MFA No. 8112 of 2019

¶25

According to the claimant, he was 44 years old as on the date of the accident, working as a Mason and earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month. As per the wound certificate, he had sustained laceration of 5 cm over left parietal region, fracture right tibia and fibula right leg at middle 1/3rd and lower 1/3rd area. As there was no evidence, the Tribunal had taken the income at Rs.9,000/per month. According to the doctor, the claimant had sustained 29% disability to his right lower limb and 10% disability to the whole body. The Court below had considered 10% disability and granted compensation under the following heads:

¶26

	Heads	C	ompensation Awarded
1.	Pain and sufferings	Rs.	40,000/-
2.	Loss of future earnings	Rs.	1,51,200/-
3.	Medical expenses	Rs.	46,135/-
4.	Loss of amenities of life	Rs.	25,000/-
5.	Conveyance, nourishment & nutritious food	Rs.	30,000/-
6.	Loss of future medical expenses	Rs.	15,000/-
	Total	Rs.	3,17,335/-

¶27

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:46650 MFA No. 8112 of 2019

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the compensation that was granted by the Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering is on the lower side. He submits that when it is the case of the claimant that he was earning an amount of Rs.20,000/per month, the Court below had taken only an amount of Rs.9,000/- as the income which is on the lower side. It is submitted that under all the heads, the compensation that was awarded by the Tribunal was not a reasonable compensation.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the Court below had rightly considered the evidence and granted the compensation and no grounds are made out seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel on either side,

¶31

perused the entire material on record. In this case, the claimant had sustained one grievous injury. Under the head of pain and suffering, the Court below had granted

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:46650 MFA No. 8112 of 2019

¶33

an amount of Rs.40,000/- and no interference is called for. As this is an accident of the year 2016, the Court below had taken an amount of Rs.9,000/- as the income and it calls for no interference. Hence, the compensation granted towards loss of future income do not require any enhancement. Towards medical bills, the Court below had rightly granted the compensation. Then coming to the loss of amenities, the Court below had granted an amount of Rs.25,000/-. Considering the disability, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of

¶34

amenities . Towards conveyance, nourishment and nutritious food, the Court below had rightly granted the compensation. Towards future medical expenses also no enhancement is required. Towards loss of income during the laid up period, no amounts were granted. Considering the income at Rs.9,000/- for three months (Rs.9,000x3), this Court is granting an amount of Rs.27,000/- towards

¶35

loss of income during the laid up period .

¶36

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:46650 MFA No. 8112 of 2019

¶37

In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble

¶38

Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M. MALATHI AND ANOTHER¹ , the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses . Altogether, the claimant is entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.3,59,335/- .

¶39

The claimant is therefore, entitled to the

¶40

compensation under the following heads:

¶41

	Heads		C	ompensation Awarded
1.	Pain and suffering	:	Rs.	40,000/-
2.	Medical expenses	:	Rs.	46,135/-
3.	Loss of amenities	:	Rs.	30,000/-
4.	Conveyance, nourishment and nutritious food	:	Rs.	30,000/-
5.	Loss of income during the laid up period	:	Rs.	27,000/-
6.	Loss of future earnings	:	Rs.	1,51,200/-
7.	Future medical expenses	:	Rs.	25,000/-
8.	Legal Expenses	:	Rs.	10,000/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	3,59,335/-

¶42

1 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶43

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:46650 MFA No. 8112 of 2019

¶44

Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is

¶45

allowed-in-part , by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.3,17,335/- to Rs.3,59,335/- setting aside the award passed in M.V.C.No.3744/2017 dated

¶46

17.12.2018.

¶47

i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6%

¶48

p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The claimant will not be entitled for any interest for the delayed period.

¶49

ii. The respondent - insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the

¶50

judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

¶51

iii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court

¶52

Records to the Tribunal, along with certified

¶53

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:46650 MFA No. 8112 of 2019

¶54

copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith

¶55

without any delay.

¶56

iv. No costs.

¶57

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶58

SD/JUDGE

¶59

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Dinesh N Vs Sri. Nanda Kumar v

Chandrashekar Vs Smt Indramma

Chinnappaiah @ Chikkappaiah Vs Ramesh

Jeson Saldanha Vs Arun D Souza

B R Sadananda Vs B M Chandra

Sri. Shivakumar Vs the Divisional Manager