Partly allowed

Sri Sudhakara Shetty v. Sri Nagaraja

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2023MFA/9074/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an award enhancing compensation in a motor vehicle accident case. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, increasing the total compensation from Rs. 2,10,580/- to Rs. 3,09,510/- by adjusting heads for pain and suffering, loss of income, and conveyance charges., while retaining others.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 2,10,580/- to Rs. 3,09,510/- carrying 6% p.a. interest; deposit required within eight weeks.

Sri Sudhakara Shetty Vs Sri Nagaraja — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:37633 MFA No. 9074 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9074 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SUDHAKARA SHETTY, S/O B. SHESHU SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O PATAGOLI MELMANE, HALAGERI, KAMBADAKONE VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK - 576 201.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

SRI. NAGARAJA, S/O THIMMAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O BALANA MANE, BOLAMBALLI POST, KALTHODU VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK - 576 201.

¶14

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISONAL OFFICE, UDUPI - 576 101.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. BHARATHI. M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 13.09.2022)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:37633 MFA No. 9074 of 2017

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.06.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.109/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This is an appeal filed by the claimants aggrieved by the award passed in MVC No.109/2016 dated 21.06.2017 seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶22

It is the case of the claimant that, on 26.09.2015 at about 1.45 pm when the claimant was walking by the side of the dambar road from Kalthodu towards Kambadakone side, at that time a motorcycle riding by its rider came from Kalthodu towards Kambadakone side in a rash and negligent manner, took

¶23

the said vehicle to the extreme left side of the road and dashed against the claimant, who was walking on the mud

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:37633 MFA No. 9074 of 2017

¶25

road. Due to the said impact, he sustained grievous injuries. As per the wound certificate he sustained the following injuries:

¶26

Head injury mild haemorrhagic contusion in left contrum ascmiovable,

¶27

Nasole bone fracture,

¶28

Distal femoral condyle fracture right,

¶29

Abrasion on right foot

¶30

Right knee swollen- painful.

¶31

As per the wound certificate, injury Nos.1 to 3

¶32

are grievous in nature and injury Nos. 4 and 5 are simple in nature. The Court below had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering. Then basing on the medical bills placed before the Court below an amount of Rs.68,510/- was granted. Towards medical expenses, towards future medical expenses an amount of Rs.16,000/- was granted. When it comes to the disability the doctor had opined that he had sustained

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:37633 MFA No. 9074 of 2017

¶35

26% disability to his right lower limb. However the Court below considering the income tax returns filed by him i.e., Exs.P10 and P11 has come to the conclusion that, the claimant could not place any evidence to show that because of these injuries there was loss of income to the claimant and granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss of discomfort. Then coming to the loss of earning the Court below had granted an amount of Rs.8,069/-, considering Rs.620/per day for the hospitalization period. Towards conveyance, nourishment

¶36

and attendant charges granted an amount of Rs.8,000/-. Altogether compensation of an amount of Rs.2,10,580/was granted by the Tribunal.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the claimant

¶38

submits that when he had suffered the disability of 26% towards the limb, the Court below ought to have considered disability considering the income of the claimant who is the income tax assesse. It is submitted that for the three simple injuries sustained by him the

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:37633 MFA No. 9074 of 2017

¶40

Court below had granted only an amount of Rs.60,000/towards pain and suffering. Learned counsel submits that even under the heads of loss of earning during the laid up period and loss of amenities and conveyance the amounts granted by the Tribunal were not reasonable.

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that in every case of disability the claimant is not entitled for compensation under the head of future loss of income unless and until there is functional disability which would have impact on his future earnings. In this case the material placed on records shows that there is no loss of income and the future aspects of the claimants are not affected. The Court below rightly not granted the future loss of income by applying the multiplier. It is submitted that by granting an amount of Rs.50,000/towards discomfort, whatever the inconvenience that is caused to the claimant had been rightly compensated. Learned counsel submits that under all the heads the amount that were granted are

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:37633 MFA No. 9074 of 2017

¶44

reasonable, no grounds are made out for enhancement of the compensation.

¶45

Having heard learned counsel on either side,

¶46

perused the entire material on record.

¶47

First coming to the head of pain and suffering

¶48

the Court below had observed that as per the wound certificate there are three grievous injuries and two simple injuries. The accident is of the year 2015. Considering the

¶49

pain and sufferings this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- towards pain and suffering. Towards medical bills and future medical expenses the court below had granted an amount of Rs.68,510/and 16,000/- respectively, basing on the evidence and no interference is called for under these heads. Then

¶50

coming to the loss of income during the laid up period , considering the injuries atleast he requires three months time to get back to the work. Considering Rs.10,000/- per month this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.30,000/- for three months, towards loss

¶51

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:37633 MFA No. 9074 of 2017

¶52

of discomfort the Court below had granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- which is reasonable and no interference is called for. Towards conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges under these three heads the Court below had granted an amount of Rs.8,000/- and considering the evidence on record this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.15,000/- under the said head .

¶53

In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA –vsM.MALATHI AND ANOTHER¹ , the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses . All together the claimant entitled is for amount of Rs.3,09,510/-.

¶54

The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads:

¶55

1 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶56

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:37633 MFA No. 9074 of 2017

¶57

	Heads		Co A	mpensation warded Rs.
1.	Pain and Agony	:	Rs.	1,20,000.00
2.	Medical Expenses	:	Rs.	68,510.00
3.	Future medical Expenses	:	Rs.	16,000.00
4.	Loss of earning during the laid up period	:	Rs.	30,000.00
5.	Loss of discomfort	:	Rs.	50,000.00
6.	Transport, Extra Nourishment and Attendant Charges	:	Rs.	15,000.00
7.	Legal Expenses	:	Rs.	10,000.00
	Total	:	Rs.	3,09,510.00

¶58

i) Accordingly, the Appeal is partly allowed , enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.2,10,580/- to Rs.3,09,510/-.

¶59

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

¶60

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

¶61

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:37633 MFA No. 9074 of 2017

¶62

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

¶63

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.

¶64

v) No costs.

¶65

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶66

SD/JUDGE

¶67

KBM

¶68

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT: BHK

Sri Sudhakara Shetty v. Sri Nagaraja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sudhakara Shetty v. Sri Nagaraja

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

Master Harish S/O Late Shivaraj Vs the Divisional Manager

Smt H S Manjula Vs S Murugesh

Raju S/O Late Venkatesh Vs Divisional Manager

Dorethi Mascarenhas Vs P M Narayana

H S Jagadheesha Vs the Manager

Anthoni D Souza Vs P M Narayana