Partly allowed

Kumari. Mayuri Dilip Patil v. the Superintendent of Police

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2024MFA/101956/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured in a road accident sought enhancement of compensation from Rs.27,11,000 awarded by the Tribunal. The Court raised notional monthly income to Rs.12,000, added 40% future prospects with multiplier 18, re-assessing loss of future income at Rs.21,77,280 and total compensation at Rs.35,92,280 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.35,92,280 with interest at 6% p.a.; respondent No.2 to deposit enhanced amount within six weeks.

Kumari. Mayuri Dilip Patil Vs the Superintendent of… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15138-DB MFA No. 101956 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 PRESENT

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD AND

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101956 OF 2018

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

KUMARI. MAYURI DILIP PATIL AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COMPUTER OPERATOR (NOW NIL) AND STUDENT, R/O. KANGARAL B.K., TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI-14.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. YASH NADAKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE REP. BY S.P.BELAGAVI, S.P.OFFICE, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶11

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2024.10.25 14:31:38 +0530

¶12

KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT (KGID) MOTOR BRANCH, BENGALURU, NO.19, STORY VISHVESHWARAIAH CENTRE (MAIN BUILDING), DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU, R/Y BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, KGID BELAGAVI-VISHVESHWARAIAH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, ADDL. GOVT. ADV FOR R1 AND R2)

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1988/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15138-DB MFA No. 101956 of 2018

¶17

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)

¶20

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 12.07.2017 passed by learned IV Additional District Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi, in MVC No.1988/2016.

¶21

Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that, on 27.07.2015, the claimant along with Prabhavati Karoshi was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22-EE-1951 towards Channamma Circle and when they reached Hindalaga Bridge, NH-4-sevice road, opposite to Shantesha Motors, Vaibhav Nagar, Belagavi, at about 19:15 hours, at that time, the driver of the Tata Sumo bearing No.KA-22-G-331 came from

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15138-DB MFA No. 101956 of 2018

¶23

opposite direction in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner, as a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and was admitted as an indoor patient in KLE Hospital Belagavi from 27.07.2015 to 01.09.2015, 02.10.2015 to 06.10.2015, 20.10.2015 to 25.10.2015 and from 09.11.2015 to 13.11.2015 and undergone six operations wherein implants were inserted. She lost her sight and took treatment at L.V. Prasad Eye Institute and underwent operation to her right eye and artificial eye was fixed and she was on follow up treatment at both the hospitals. Hence, the claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that she spent significant amount towards medical expenses, conveyance charges and other related costs. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶24

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15138-DB MFA No. 101956 of 2018

¶25

Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through DGP. Respondent No.1 filed objections which has been adopted by respondent No.2 denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶26

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.27,11,000/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and held respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, however, respondent No.2 being the insurer of Tata Sumo Vehicle directed the 2^nd respondent to deposit the entire compensation within three months from the date of the judgment. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the present appeal has been filed.

¶27

Sri. Yash Nadakarni, learned counsel appearing for the claimant has contended that, at the time of the

¶28

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15138-DB MFA No. 101956 of 2018

¶29

accident, the claimant was aged about 23 years. She has completed MBA and computer course. To that effect, she has produced Exs.P-22 and P-23. The Tribunal has assessed monthly income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/which is on the lower side. Secondly, he contended that since the claimant has suffered 60% disability to the whole body, she is unable to do her day to day work. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd¹ and the decision of this Court in the case of Punyashree H. v. Dr.

¶30

Jayamma and another² , the claimant is entitled to future prospects. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶31

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents contended that at the time of the accident, the claimant was a non-earning member; she had completed her MBA and computer course,

¶32

1 AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4284

¶33

2 2020 SCC ONLINE KAR 1967

¶34

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15138-DB MFA No. 101956 of 2018

¶35

therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed notional income of the claimant as Rs.10,000/-per month. He further contended that since the claimant has failed to establish her income, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded future prospects. Therefore, he contended that, considering the injury suffered by the claimant, the over

¶36

all compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and award and the original records.

¶38

It is not in dispute that the claimant has suffered injuries in a road traffic incident that occurred on 27.07.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KA-22-G-331. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffering the following injuries:

¶39

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15138-DB MFA No. 101956 of 2018

¶40

“1. comminuted fracture of mid shaft of the tibia and fibula lower 3^rd with compartment syndrome on right side.

¶41

2. Displaced fracture of distal phalanx on right hand little finger.

¶42

3. Fracture of first metatarsal right foot.”

¶43

At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 23 years. She had completed MBA as per Ex.P-22 and also completed computer course which is evident from Ex.P-23 certificate. Considering her educational qualification and the age of the claimant, we are of the opinion that monthly income of the claimant has to be assessed at Rs.12,000/-. Due to the accidental injuries, the claimant has suffered the aforesaid injuries. The Tribunal considering the evidence of the Doctor and the medical records, has assessed the whole body disability at 60%. Due to the disability, the claimant is unable to do her day to day work and it affects her future avocation. Considering the decision of the Apex Court in Erudhaya Priya’s case(supra) and the decision of Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Punyashree’s case(supra), the claimant is

¶44

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15138-DB MFA No. 101956 of 2018

¶45

entitled for future prospects. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi³ since the claimant was aged about 23 years, 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects and the multiplier applicable to that age group is ‘18’. Accordingly, the loss of future earnings due to disability has to be assessed as follows:

¶46

Rs.12,000+Rs.4,800/-(40%)x12x60x18/100=Rs.21,77,280/-

¶47

So far as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is concerned, the same is just and reasonable.

¶48

Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to re-assessed compensation as follows:

¶49

3 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15138-DB MFA No. 101956 of 2018

¶52

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and suffering	1,00,000/-	1,00,000/-
Medical expenses
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	25,000/- 10,000/- 30,000/-	25,000/- 10,000/- 30,000/-
Physiotherapy treatment	50,000/-	50,000/-
Medical expenses	6,00,000/-	6,00,000/-
Future medical expenses	2,00,000/-	2,00,000/-
Loss of future income due to disability	12,96,000/-	21,77,280/-
Loss of earning due to laid up period	1,00,000/-	1,00,000/-
Loss of amenities in life inclusive of marriage prospects	3,00,000/-	3,00,000/-
Total	27,11,000/-	35,92,280/-

¶53

12. In the result, the following order is passed:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 12.07.2017 passed by learned IV Additional District Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi, in MVC

¶56

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15138-DB MFA No. 101956 of 2018

¶57

No.1988/2016 is modified to the extent that the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.35,92,280/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

¶58

The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interest from within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶59

Draw the award accordingly.

¶60

Sd/(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶61

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶62

kmv

¶63

Ct:VH

Kumari. Mayuri Dilip Patil v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari. Mayuri Dilip Patil v. the Superintendent of Police

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

The Divisional Controller, Vs Smt. Asmita W/O. Shivaji Thorat

Lalsab Bapusab Kuchbal Vs the Managing Director

Kumari. Amruta D/O Late Shivaji Thorat Vs the Divisional Controller

Shri Ishwarappa Hadagali Vs Shri Raskulsab Jiddinamani

Smt.Shilpa @ Shaila W/O. Shambhuling Vs Sri.Shambhuling S/O. Fakkirappa Bhusad

Suresh S/O Arjun Sainsakale Vs the State of Karnataka