Partly allowed

Smt Mangalagowramma @ Mangalagowri v. Sri Rajegowda

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2024MFA/1080/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant appealed against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of Rs.6,68,298. The High Court found the award for pain, suffering, and amenities was low given the injuries. The Court enhanced the compensation by Rs.1,00,000, directed interest at 6% p.a., and ordered the insurer to deposit the sum within 8 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation by Rs.1,00,000; interest at 6% p.a. from petition date; deposit by Respondent No.2 within 8 weeks.

Smt Mangalagowramma @ Mangalagowri Vs Sri Rajegowda — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:37144 MFA No. 1080 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1080 OF 2022(MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. MANGALAGOWRAMMA @ MANGALAGOWRI W/O LATE RAMESH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT C/O SMT. KUMARI, OLD SANTHEMALA, KAUVERIPURA, SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN AND TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 574 138.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. RAJEGOWDA S/O SIDDEGOWDA AGED MAJOR R/AT NO.351, B. SEEHALLI VILLAGE, BANNUR HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 438.

¶14

THE MANAGER IFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.35, 1^ST FLOOR, NEAR AKSHYA BANDAR NEW KANTHARAJ URS ROAD MYSORE - 571 438.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.S. LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 16.02.2022)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:37144 MFA No. 1080 of 2022

¶18

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.11.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1699/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Heard Sri.Srinivas.V, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.Sunil Kumar.K, learned counsel who represents Sri.H.S.Lingaraju, learned counsel on record for respondent No.2.

¶23

This is a claimant's appeal. Challenge in this

¶24

appeal is the order that is rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srirangapatna in MVC No.1699/2018 dated 20.11.2020. On the ground that she sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident and became permanently disabled, the appellant claimed compensation of Rs.33,50,000/- in total. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.6,68,298/- as

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37144 MFA No. 1080 of 2022

¶26

compensation. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimant is before this Court.

¶27

Arguing the matter, learned counsel

¶28

Sri.Srinivas.V, for the appellant submits that the appellant sustained grievous head injury which resulted in permanent physical disability. Learned counsel contends that the appellant as a home maker was attending her duties, but due to the injuries sustained she is unable to do any work. Though Cw.1 deposed with regard to the nature of injury sustained and the disability, the Tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 22% which is erroneous. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement of compensation.

¶29

The submission that is made by Sri.Sunil Kumar.K for respondent No.2 on the other hand is that the Tribunal taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case awarded justifiable sum as compensation and therefore, the award needs no interference.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37144 MFA No. 1080 of 2022

¶31

5. Subjecting the evidence of Pw.1, Cw.1, Ex.P5 to

¶32

Ex.P13 and Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 to scrutiny, the Tribunal came

¶33

to a conclusion that the sum that is liable to be awarded

¶34

as compensation is Rs.6,68,298/-.

¶35

The Tribunal awarded the said sum divided

¶36

under following heads:

¶37

Sl. Description Amount
No
1 Pain, shock and agony Rs.40,000
2 Medical expenses Rs.3,14,898
3 Food, diet, nourishment,
conveyance, and other Rs.21,000
incidental expenses
4 Loss of income during
Rs.15,000
treatment period
5 Loss of income towards
Rs.2,57,400
permanent disability
6 Disappointment and
discomfort and loss of Rs.20,000
amenities
Total Rs.6,68,298

¶38

By the evidence of Cw.1, it is clear that apart

¶39

from hemorrhagic contusions at left fronto temporal

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37144 MFA No. 1080 of 2022

¶41

regions and bilateral parietal lobes, the appellant sustained multiple fractures of skull. He also deposed that the appellant underwent right temporo parietal craniotomy and evacuation of ESDH. She also underwent tracheostomy. Cw.1 stated that the disability is 65%. However, considering the totality of evidence, the Tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 22% which needs no interference.

¶42

Having considered the absence of any proof with regard to the occupation and earnings of the appellant, the Tribunal took the notional income as Rs.7,500/- which also needs no interference. However, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded under the head pain and suffering i.e., Rs.40,000/- is grossly low in the light of the grievous injuries sustained by the appellant and surgeries she underwent. Also having considered the nature of injuries sustained, this Court is of the view that the appellant would not have attended her normal pursuits at least for a period of six months.

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37144 MFA No. 1080 of 2022

¶44

However, the Tribunal did not award any amount towards attendant charges. Also the amount awarded under the head loss of amenities i.e., Rs.20,000/- is grossly low. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the sum which is required to be awarded in addition to the sum that is awarded by the Tribunal under all those heads

¶45

is Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus this Court considers desirable to enhance the compensation by Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶48

(ii) The compensation that is awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srirangapatna through orders in MVC No.1699/2018 dated 20.11.2020 is enhanced by Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶49

(iii) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶50

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:37144 MFA No. 1080 of 2022

¶51

(iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of 8(eight) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶52

(v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

¶53

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶54

NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Smt Mangalagowramma @ Mangalagowri v. Sri Rajegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mangalagowramma @ Mangalagowri v. Sri Rajegowda

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

Smt. Rekha Vs Ramesha

Smt Waheeda Begum Vs the Manager

Krishnaprasad Vs Shekar

Mr. Chandrahasa Vs Mr. Avinash v Poojary

Sri.Nagendra C.T. Vs Sri.Yogesh.a

The Manager Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Rangu Naik