Partly allowed

Sri Achuthan Kutty v. the Regional Manager

Karnataka HC30 Aug 2023MFA/8679/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing motor accident compensation from Rs. 42,000 to Rs. 82,000. The court awarded Rs. 55,000 for pain and suffering, Rs. 2,000 for transport, Rs. 15,000 for medical expenses, and Rs. 10,000 legal fees. Interest of 6% p.a. is granted for the entire period except the 1261 days of delay attributable to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs. 82,000 with 6% per annum interest excluding delay period; records returned to Tribunal.

Sri Achuthan Kutty Vs the Regional Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:31126 MFA No. 8679 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8679 OF 2016 (MV-I)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SRI. ACHUTHAN KUTTY, S/O LATE. AYYAPPAN NAIR, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT 42, SUSHANTHA, KHB QUARTERS ROAD, SULTHAN PALYA EXTENSION, R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 032.

¶6

…APPELLANT

¶7

(BY SRI. PRAKASH H. C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

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

¶10

THE REGIONAL MANAGER, HDFC CHUBBA GENL. INS. CO. LTD., H.M. GENEVA HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002.

¶11

MR. SRIRAM, S/O BEERAPPA, NO.27, 8TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 004.

¶12

…RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR D., ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶14

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:31126 MFA No. 8679 of 2016

¶16

AWARD DATED:12.12.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.7627/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND XVIII ACMM, BANGALORE (ACMM-18), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

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

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the judgment passed in MVC No.7627/2011, dated 12.12.2012 by the claim petition seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor vehicle accident.

¶20

The case of the claimant is that, on 28.09.2011, he was crossing Devagouda road, near Munireddy Palya the time at about 8.40 am. At that time the driver of the Auto-rickshaw drove the same in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant and as a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately he was shifted to the Hospital for further treatment and he had spent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment. It is deposed before the Court that he had sustained cut lacerated wound over right leg, haematoma around left eye, and left parietal region, abrasions

¶21

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:31126 MFA No. 8679 of 2016

¶22

over left fore head, right fingers and right big toe, subluxation of left acromioclavicular joint in the accident. He had taken treatment in the hospital as inpatient for a period of three days, later he was discharged. The Court below under the head of Pain and Sufferings granted an amount of Rs.25,000/-, towards transportation charges granted an amount of Rs.2,000/- and towards medical expenses granted an amount of Rs.15,000/totally an amount of Rs.42,000/- was granted.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that, the claimant had also sustained fracture and the court below had not considered medical evidence. It is submitted that as per the medical evidence shows that because of the said injuries he could not work, but the Tribunal had not granted loss of income during laid up period. He submits that, the compensation amount that was granted by the Tribunal is not reasonable.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that, the claimant was aged about 67 years, as on the date of the accident for all simple injuries, he had taken treatment in the hospital for three days, all other medical

¶25

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:31126 MFA No. 8679 of 2016

¶26

records do not have any nexus to the accident and they are all related to the old age problem of the claimant. He submits that the Tribunal considering the evidence had rightly granted the compensation. He submits that at the initial stage, nothing has been stated about the fracture and later they developed the case of the object stating that he had sustained the fracture. It is submitted that, the Court below had observed that no x-ray was produced to show that, he had sustained fractures.

¶27

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that, the claimant had failed to prove any grounds for seeking enhancement of the compensation. As per the evidence and as stated by the claimant all the injuries that were sustained by him are simple in nature for the fracture which were later developed in the evidence, no x-ray was produced before the Court. Even towards loss of income during the laid up period he was 67 years old. Nothing has been placed on record, what is the income of the claimant and with this simple injuries why he couldn’t work. For the injuries he had sustained under the head of Pain and Suffering the Court had granted only an amount of Rs.25,000/-. In considered opinion of this Hon'ble Court particularly the age of injured granting an amount of

¶28

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:31126 MFA No. 8679 of 2016

¶29

Rs.55,000/-. would be an appropriate amount. Towards transportation, medical expenses, the Court below had rightly granted an amount of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively.

¶30

In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. MEKALA -vs- M. MALATHI

¶31

AND ANOTHER¹ reported in (2014) 11 SCC 178, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. All together the claimant entitled is for amount of Rs.82,000/-.

¶32

The claimant is therefore, entitled to the

¶33

compensation under the following heads:

¶34

	Heads		Com A	pensation warded
1.	Pain and Sufferings	:	Rs.	55,000/-
2.	Transport Charges	:	Rs.	2,000/-
3.	Medical Expenses	:	Rs.	15,000/-
4.	Legal Expenses	:	Rs.	10,000/-
	Total	:	Rs.	82,000/-

¶35

1 2014(11) scc 178

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:31126 MFA No. 8679 of 2016

¶38

i) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.42,000/- to Rs.82,000/-.

¶39

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

¶40

iii) There was delay of 1261 days in filing the said appeal, the said period the claimant is not entitle for the interest, on the enhanced amount.

¶41

iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶42

v) No costs.

¶43

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

SD/JUDGE

KBM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT:PH

Sri Achuthan Kutty v. the Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Achuthan Kutty v. the Regional Manager

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

M/S Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Master Suraj

Sri Pradeep Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance

Mr Mahesh T Vs Mr Muttu Selvam

Legal Manager Vs Anantha M

Garison Engineer Vs Sanganna

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri H J Somashekara