Partly allowed

The Divisional Manager, v. Shri. Shivappa Ningappa Yandigeri

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2024MFA/100672/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a motor accident claim award, the High Court of Karnataka reduced the compensation from Rs.9,00,000 to Rs.6,59,918 by reassessing disability factor to 20%, adjusting notional income to Rs.7,000/month, and recalculating future and laid-up period losses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced from Rs.9,00,000 to Rs.6,59,918 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition.

The Divisional Manager, Vs Shri. Shivappa Ningappa… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:1445 MFA No. 100672 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100672 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI. REP. BY SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, UMMAHESWARA RAO BUILDING, STATION ROAD, HOSPET-583201.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. M.K.SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SHRI. SHIVAPPA NINGAPPA YANDIGERI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRI and COOLIE (NOW NIL), R/O: OBALAPUR, TAL: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶13

Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Date: 2024.02.03 12:57:21 +0530

¶14

SHRI. MAJUNATH DYAVAPPA HALAKATTI, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HORAPET ONI, KERUR, TAL: BADAMI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YASH R.NADAKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VITTAL S.TELI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 DISPENSED WITH)

¶15

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 20.10.2016, PASSED IN MVC NO.2146/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE IV-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,85,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC-D:1445 MFA No. 100672 of 2017

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Heard Shri. M. K. Soudagar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri. Yash R. Nadakarni, learned counsel representing Shri. Vittal S. Teli, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶21

The Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal challenging the quantum of compensation in respect of accidental claim made in MVC No.2146/2013 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi.

¶22

Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

¶23

3.1. In respect of a road traffic accident met by the claimant on 13.02.2013 at about 6.00 p.m., involving Auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-29/TR-0455 and motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-24/K-6182, claimant laid a claim.

¶24

Claimant being the rider of the motor cycle, suffered grievous injuries in as much as six fractures and he

¶25

- 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:1445 MFA No. 100672 of 2017

¶26

was taken to the hospital and was inpatient for a period of 13 days and later on he was laid up for a period of 3½ months to get himself cured of all injuries.

¶27

In the absence of proper proof of income, the Tribunal considered monthly income as Rs.8,500/- and disability factor as 30% though PW.2 has assessed 60% to the whole body is not a treating doctor and awarded a sum of Rs.9,00,000/on cumulative consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record.

¶28

Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation

¶29

awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company is in appeal.

¶30

Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, Shri. M.K. Soudagar, learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the absence of proper proof of income, the Tribunal ought not have taken monthly income in a sum of Rs.8,500/- for the accidental injuries of the year 2013 and computed the income in a sum of Rs.7,000/- and so also the disability factor must have been assessed at 1/3^rd of the disability factor shown in the disability certificate having regard to the fact that PW.2 is not a treated doctor and sought for reassessment of the quantum of compensation.

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:1445 MFA No. 100672 of 2017

¶32

He also pointed out that on the ground of loss of amenities, loss of income during laid up period and the medical expenses are all on higher side and sought for re-assessment of the quantum of compensation.

¶33

Per contra, Shri. Yash R. Nadakarni, learned counsel representing Shri. Vittal S. Teli, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported the impugned judgment by contending that the injured has suffered six fractures and therefore, quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is in fact on lower side and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶34

In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this

¶35

Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶36

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the claimant has suffered six fractures. In the disability certificate marked at Ex.P.15, 60% disablity factor is shown. Admittedly PW.2 –Dr. Satish Devagouda Patil is not a treated doctor. He has perused the material documents with regard to the injuries sustained by the claimants and estimated the disability factor at 60%. Whenever a treated doctor is not examined before the Court, this Court would usually assess the disability factor by taking 1/3^rd of the disability factor shown in

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:1445 MFA No. 100672 of 2017

¶38

the disability certificate. Accordingly, disability factor is reassessed at 20%.

¶39

There is sufficient force in the argument put forth on behalf of the Insurance Company that notional monthly income has been taken by the Tribunal on the higher side in the absence of any proper proof of income by taking the monthly income in a sum of Rs.8,500/-. Under such circumstances, usually this Court for the accidental injuries sustained by a person monthly income would be assessed notionally in a sum of Rs.7,000/-. Therefore, on the head of loss of future income, a case is made out by the Insurance Company to reduce the compensation.

¶40

Likewise, on the head of loss of income during the laid up period should be reduced to Rs.21,000/- taking note of the fact that he has lost income at the rate of Rs.7,000/- for a period of three months.

¶41

On the head of pain and suffering and loss of amenities, this Court does not want to interfere having regard to the fact that the claimant has suffered six fractures.

¶42

On the head of medical expenses even though the material available on record is only to the extent of

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC-D:1445 MFA No. 100672 of 2017

¶45

Rs.1,60,718/-, the Tribunal has granted Rs.1,94,600/- without

¶46

there being any proper proof thereof.

¶47

Therefore, a case is made out for re-assessment of

¶48

compensation and it is re-assessed as under:

¶49

1	Pain and suffering	Rs.1,00,000/-
2	Medical Expenses	Rs.1,60,718/-
3	Loss of future happiness and	Rs.1,00,000/-
	amenities
4	Loss of future income	Rs.2,35,200/-
5	Loss of income during laid up period	Rs.21,000/-
6	Incidental charges	Rs.28,000/-
7	Future medical expenses	Rs.15,000/-
	Total	Rs.6,59,918/-

¶50

Hence, the following order is passed:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(i) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶53

(ii) As against the compensation in a sum of

¶54

Rs.9,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the claim would be entitled to compensation in a sum of Rs.6,59,918/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶55

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:1445 MFA No. 100672 of 2017

¶56

(iii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be

¶57

transmitted to the Tribunal.

¶58

(iv) The Insurance Company is granted four weeks time to deposit the balance amount of compensation.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

SMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

The Divisional Manager, v. Shri. Shivappa Ningappa Yandigeri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager, v. Shri. Shivappa Ningappa Yandigeri

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

Sri. Shivaputra Rudrappa Ujjankoppa Vs Karnataka Niravari Nigam Limited

Smt. Chandrabhagi Saraswati Devali Died by Lrs Sri Ullas Chandrabhaga Yani Vs the Special Land Acquisiton Officer

Naveen S/O Henry Dani Vs Smt. Hillee W/O Naveen Dani

The Branch Manager, Vs Smt. Nazarin W/O. Sayyad Rafiq Sayyad

Laxmi W/O Sunil Tagore Vs Kadappa Babu Dua

Parashuram S/O Late Sunkappa, Vs Venkaramudu S/O Anjaneyulu