Partly allowed

Pakeerappa v. Chandravathi

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2023MFA/90/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the compensation award in a motor vehicle case. The court held the insurance company liable despite license irregularities and enhanced compensation amounts for pain, suffering, and future medical expenses, totaling Rs. 1,25,189/-.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.59,439/- to Rs.1,25,189/- with 6% p.a. interest. Respondent insurance company directed to deposit amount within eight weeks.

Pakeerappa Vs Chandravathi — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:40088 MFA No. 90 of 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 90 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PAKEERAPPA @ TUDABIN FAKIRAPPA S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT TUDAVINA KULAGERI HOUSE KULAGERI VILLAGE BADAMI TALUK BAGALKOT DISTRICT PRESENTLY R/AT C/O DEVAPPA BASAVANAGAR, KUNJATHBAIL MANGALORE D.K.DISTRICT- 575 017

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

CHANDRAVATHI W/O MANJOR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT VIGNESHWARA KRIPA SHIVANAGAR, MOODUSHEDDE, MANGALORE D.K.DISTRICT- 575 007

¶14

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD II FLOOR, RAM BHAVAN COMPLEX KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE D.K.DISTRICT - 575 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIISIONAL MANAGER

¶15

… RESPONDENTS

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:40088 MFA No. 90 of 2018

¶18

(BY SRI.B.A.RAMAKRISHNA .,ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED21.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1384/2013 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MANGALURU, D.K., PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation aggrieved by the award passed in MVC No.1384/2013, dated 21.02.2017, by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Mangaluru, D.K.

¶23

The claim petition is filed seeking compensation

¶24

of an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. The court below on the issue of the liability of insurance company has held that

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:40088 MFA No. 90 of 2018

¶27

the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. It is observed by the court below that the driver of the vehicle had a driving license to drive vehicles other than transport vehicles. But he was driving a transport vehicle and there was no endorsement and the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and held that the owner alone is liable to pay the compensation.

¶28

Coming to the aspect of compensation as per

¶29

the wound certificate the claimant had suffered Crepitus - Bimalleolar fracture of right heel, cut lacerated wound over the right heel, and other simple injuries. Under the head of pain and suffering the court below had granted an amount of Rs.25,000/-, towards attendant, food and extra nourishment granted an amount of Rs.5,250/-, towards loss of amenities an amount of Rs.15,000/- and towards medical expenses an amount of Rs.14,189/- was granted. Altogether an amount of Rs.59,439/- was awarded.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:40088 MFA No. 90 of 2018

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the claimant

¶33

submits that the court below without looking at the wound certificate and simply considering that the injuries are simple in nature granted an amount of Rs.25,000/towards pain and suffering which is on the lower side. It is submitted that the claimant had sustained fracture and had undergone a surgery and he was in the hospital and later he recovered. Under the head of attendant, food and nourishment only an amount of Rs.5,250/- was granted which is on the lower side. It is submitted that as per the doctor the claimant has suffered 10% disability, under the head of loss of amenities in life only an amount of Rs.15,000/- is granted. It is submitted that even as per

¶34

the doctor he requires a future surgery for removal of the implants but no amounts were granted towards future medical expenses. Learned Counsel submits that even under the head of loss of income during the laid up period no amounts were granted. Learned counsel submits that the compensation that was granted by the court below was not just and reasonable compensation.

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40088 MFA No. 90 of 2018

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that as the driver did not have a valid and effective driving license and as the terms and conditions of the policy are violated the insurance company was exonerated rightly and they are not liable to pay the compensation. He submits that under various other heads the compensation that was granted was reasonable and no grounds are made out.

¶37

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. In this case the claimant had sustained one grievous injury with regard to that aspect the court below had granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, which is on lower side and this court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.40,000/- under the head of pain and suffering , towards attendant charges, extra-nourishment and conveyance considering the injuries, surgery, hospitalization and the recovery period, this court is inclined to grant Rs.15,000/- on these 3 heads. Coming

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:40088 MFA No. 90 of 2018

¶40

to the loss of income during laid up period the court below had not granted any amount. Considering that this is an accident of the year 2013, this Court is inclined to take the income at Rs.8,000/- p.m., and for two months an amount of Rs.16,000/- (Rs.8,000 x 2) is granted towards loss of income during laid up period . Coming to the loss of amenities the court below had rightly granted an amount of Rs.15,000/- as it was one fracture and it was united this Court finds no grounds to enhance the amount, towards future medical expenses when implants are inserted they have to be removed for which one more surgery is required and this Court is inclined to grant Rs.15,000/- and towards medical expenses the court below had granted Rs.14,189/- basing on the bills and receipts produced and this court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶41

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

¶42

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:40088 MFA No. 90 of 2018

¶43

MALATHI AND ANOTHER¹ , the claimant is entitled for

¶44

an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Legal Expenses .

¶45

The claimant is therefore, entitled to the

¶46

compensation under the following heads:

¶47

	Heads		Com A	pensation warded
1.	Pain and Sufferings	:	Rs.	40,000/-
2.	Loss of Earning during laid up period (Rs.8,000 x 2 )	:	Rs.	16,000/-
3.	Medical Expenses	:	Rs.	14,189/-
4.	Loss of Amenities	:	Rs.	15,000/-
5.	Future Medical Expenses	:	Rs.	15,000/-
6.	Attendant, Extra Nourishment and Conveyance	:	Rs.	15,000/-
7.	Legal Expenses	:	Rs.	10,000/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	1,25,189/-

¶48

When it comes to the liability in the light of the

¶49

law laid down by the Hon'ble Mukund Dewangan v.

¶50

Oriental Insurance Co. Limited² though the driver was

¶51

1 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶52

2 (2017) 14 SCC 663

¶53

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC:40088 MFA No. 90 of 2018

¶55

not having a transport endorsement, still the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.

¶56

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed ,

¶57

enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.59,439/- to Rs.1,25,189/-.

¶58

i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, excluding the amount granted under the head 'future medical expenses'.

¶59

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

¶60

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

¶61

iii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified

¶62

¶63

NC: 2023:KHC:40088 MFA No. 90 of 2018

¶64

copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith

¶65

without any delay.

¶66

iv) No costs.

¶67

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶68

SD/JUDGE

¶69

JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 126

Pakeerappa v. Chandravathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pakeerappa v. Chandravathi

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

Legal Manager Vs Sri Srinivas v

Smt Kantha Vs Mr Murugeshan D

Srinivasaiah a Vs the Managing Director

Mr Ravish Kumar Vs Mr. Prabhakar

M/S Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs D Raju

Lokesh Vs H N Byrappa