Partly allowed

Siddappa v. Sunil Arjun Rajai

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2024MFA/100600/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed Motor Vehicles Appeal in part against compensation award. Court enhanced quantum of compensation due to higher notional income and greater disability, fixing total entitlement at Rs.4,93,800 before 50% contributory negligence deduction.

What did the court decide?

Appellant entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,29,900 with interest at 6% per annum from date of petition to realization, payable by respondent No.2.

Siddappa Vs Sunil Arjun Rajai — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13135 MFA No. 100600 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100600 OF 2014

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SIDDAPPA LAGAMA AINARATTI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, NOW NIL, R/O: BENAKANHALLI, POST: NARASINGPUR, TALUK: HUKERI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SUNIL ARJUN RAJAI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BRAHMALING GALLI, KEDANUR VILLAGE, TALUK and DIST: BELGAUM.

¶12

BHARATHI H M

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., BR. I CAMP BUILDING, KHADE BAZAR, R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, D.O., AT CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST PRAYS TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN MVC NO.1427/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK COURT-III & ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM, AT:BELGAUM, DATED 05.09.2012 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13135 MFA No. 100600 of 2014

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.1427/2011 by judgment dated 05.09.2012 by the Fast Track Court-III and Additional MACT, Belagavi and also challenged the contributory negligence.

¶23

The facts of claimant’s case in brief are that, on 27.05.2011, the appellant/ claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.KA-23/J-8273 and he was driving his vehicle on his left side in a moderate speed and when he came near Indal service road NH4 at about 2:30 pm, one goods tempo bearing No.KA-22-B-1377 was proceeding ahead abruptly took to the side without giving any signal as a result dashed to the motorcycle, due to the impact, the appellant/ claimant sustained grievous injuries. The appellant/ claimant made a claim petition and the Tribunal after recording the evidence has awarded compensation as under:

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13135 MFA No. 100600 of 2014

¶25

Injury pain and agony	: Rs.	40,000-00
Medical expenses	: Rs.	32,000-00
Nursing attendant charges extra nourishment & conveyance	: Rs.	10,000-00
Loss of earning during treatment	: Rs.	10,000-00
Loss of future earning	: Rs.	92,000-00
For future medical expenses	: Rs.	20,000-00
Loss of amenities and future unhappiness	: Rs.	30,000-00
Total	: Rs.	2,34,000-00

¶26

The Tribunal has held that there is a

¶27

contributory negligence on the part of the appellant/ claimant to the extent of 50% and therefore directed the insurance company to pay 50% of the total compensation awarded in a sum of ₹2,34,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. The said judgment has been challenged by the claimant in this appeal.

¶28

Heard the learned for appellant and learned

¶29

counsel for respondent No.2 - insurance company.

¶30

Learned counsel for appellant would contend

¶31

that the liability to the extent of 50% on the basis of contributory negligence as fixed by the Tribunal is not

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13135 MFA No. 100600 of 2014

¶33

proper. He contends that the Tribunal has taken the income at ₹3,000/- per month, but as per the chart prepared for Lok-Adalat by Legal Services Authority for the year 2011, the notional income is fixed at ₹4,000/-. The Tribunal ought to have taken the said income. He contends that the Doctor who examined the appellant/ claimant has been examined as PW.3 and in his disability certificate - Ex.P-9, it is stated that there is 45% of disability of left lower limb and there are two fractures and plate and screws are inserted and there is 2 cm shorten of the leg. He contends that the Tribunal ought to have taken the disability higher than 15% by considering the said aspect. He contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on other heads namely pain and suffering, loss of amenities, future medical expenses and attendant charges are on lower side, with this he prayed to allow the appeal.

¶34

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends

¶35

that the charge sheet has been filed against both the vehicles and therefore, considering the said aspect the

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13135 MFA No. 100600 of 2014

¶37

Tribunal has rightly taken the contributory negligence as 50%. He contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsels, the Court

¶39

has perused the judgment, award and the trial Court records.

¶40

The charge sheet has been filed against the appellant/ claimant and also the driver of the goods vehicle. Considering the said aspect, the Tribunal has rightly held that the contributory negligence of the appellant/ claimant is at 50%. Therefore, no error can be found with the finding of the Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence.

¶41

The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant as Rs.3,000/- per month, but as per the chart prepared by Legal Services Authority for settlement of disputes in Lok-Adalat the notional income fixed for the year 2011 is Rs.6,000/- per month, the Tribunal ought to have taken the said income.

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13135 MFA No. 100600 of 2014

¶43

Ex.P-9 is the disability certificate issued by PW.3 who is a treated Doctor. PW.3 has deposed that there are two fractures, namely fracture of upper 1/3^rd tibia and fibula left comminuted and ORIF e plate and three screws are fixed and he requires Rs.1,00,000/- for future medical expenses. The Doctor has assessed the disability of left lower limb at 45%. Even the Doctor has deposed that there is 2 cm of shorten of leg. Considering the said aspects, the disability taken by the Tribunal at 15% is on the lower side, the Tribunal ought to have taken the same at 20%. As the injured has sustained two major fractures, the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.60,000/towards pain and suffering, Rs.60,000/- towards loss of amenities. The claimant has been admitted in the hospital for 29 days and therefore, he is entitled to attendant charges of Rs.29,000/-. The claimant is also entitled to loss of income during laid up period in a sum of Rs.18,000/- (6,000/- x 3 months). The Tribunal has awarded medical expenses of Rs.32,000/- based on bills and it is proper. The Doctor has deposed that claimant

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13135 MFA No. 100600 of 2014

¶45

requires Rs.1,00,000/- for his future medical expenses. But, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-. Considering the fact that plate and screws are inserted and he require to undergo surgery to remove plate. The claimant is entitled to future medical expenses in a sum of Rs.50,000/-. In view of the above, the appellant/ claimant

¶46

is entitled to compensation for loss of future earnings in a sum of ₹2,44,800/- (6,000/- x 12 x 17 x 20/100). In view of the above, the claimant is entitled to compensation as

¶47

under:

¶48

Medical expenses	: Rs.	32,000-00
Pain and sufferings	: Rs.	60,000-00
Loss of Future Amenities	: Rs.	60,000-00
Attendant, Food and Nourishment charges	: Rs.	29,000-00
Loss of Future Income	: Rs.	2,44,800-00
Loss of Income during Laid Up period	: Rs.	18,000-00
Future Medical Expenses	: Rs.	50,000-00
Total	: Rs.	4,93,800-00

¶49

As there is a contributory negligence of the claimant at 50%, the claimant is entitled to 50% of compensation awarded in a sum of Rs.4,93,800/-. Therefore, the appellant/ claimant is entitled to

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13135 MFA No. 100600 of 2014

¶51

compensation of Rs.2,46,900/- as against Rs.1,17,000/as awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,29,900/-. In view of the above, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶54

ii) Appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,29,900/with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till its realization.

¶55

iii) The respondent No.2 - insurance company is liable to pay the said enhanced compensation with interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶56

iv) The appellant is entitled to release of entire amount of enhanced compensation.

¶57

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶58

¶59

CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Siddappa v. Sunil Arjun Rajai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddappa v. Sunil Arjun Rajai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Basappa S/O Irappa Ulagaddi

The Divisional Manager Vs Kallappa

Hemavati W/O Vasant Kolakar Vs Santosh S/O Ramanna Harapanahalli

Smt. Nirmal W/O. Gangappa Basapure, Vs Shri. Duradundi W/O. Girimallappa Badakundri

Hanamappa Sagarappa@Bhimappa Maradi Vs Ameer Durgappa Bhovi

K Srikanth S/O Harinathbabu Vs the State of Karnataka