Partly allowed

Santhosha @ Santosha Nagarajappa v. Govardhan Reddy M

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2024MFA/1083/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Miscellaneous First Appeal scrutinizes a Motor Vehicle Accident compensation award. The High Court Judge held that the Tribunal under-awarded income, loss of future earnings, and specific heads. The appeal was partly allowed, enhancing the total compensation from Rs. 10.85 lakhs to Rs. 16.64 lakhs.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and award is modified. Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 16,64,137/- with the insurer depositing the amount with interest at 6% per annum within four weeks.

Santhosha @ Santosha Nagarajappa Vs Govardhan Reddy M — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:10745 MFA No. 1083 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1083 OF 2023 (MV-I)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SANTHOSHA @ SANTOSHA NAGARAJAPPA S/O NAGARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/AT KOLKUNTE VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. RAGHU R.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

GOVARDHAN REDDY M S/O O.M. BALARNAGA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, (OWNER /DRIVER OF THE AJAX VEHICLE NO.KA-17-P-9796) R/A NO. 774/30, 2^ND STAGE, SHIVAKUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE - 577 001

¶11

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD., DAVANAGERE DIVISION, OPPOSITE DENTAL COLLEGE, P J EXTENSION, SHIVANARADAMUNI PLAZA, 2^ND FLOOR, DAVANAGERE - 577 001

¶13

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.JANARDHANA REDDY.,ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶14

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.8.2022/6.9.2022 PASSED

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10745 MFA No. 1083 of 2023

¶16

IN MVC NO.696/2201 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

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

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is preferred by the appellant - claimant

¶20

challenging the judgment & award dated 23.8.2022/6.9.2022 passed in MVC No.696/2021 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Davangere (for short 'the Tribunal ). This appeal is

¶21

founded on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶22

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

¶23

their status before the Tribunal.

¶24

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶25

The claimant was working as a contract labour in

¶26

Ajax vehicle bearing registration No.KA-17/P-9796. On 8.7.2020 at about 6.30 p.m. when the vehicle after mixing

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10745 MFA No. 1083 of 2023

¶28

concrete while returning to work spot, he and one Mr. Shivananda were on the side of the road, during which time the 1^st respondent drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed and at that time, in view of buffalo coming in front of the vehicle, the driver suddenly took the turn due to which the vehicle toppled down, as a result the claimant sustained injuries. He was immediately taken to Government hospital and thereafter shifted to various hospitals, where he underwent surgeries.

¶29

3.1 It is also pleaded that prior to the accident, the claimant was hale and healthy and doing coolie work earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained and permanent physical disability suffered, the claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

¶30

3.2 On service of notice, Respondent No.1 did not

¶31

file the written statement. Respondent No.2 filed the written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition including age, avocation, income and

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:10745 MFA No. 1083 of 2023

¶34

negligence attributed against driver of the offending Ajax vehicle. It is also pleaded that driver of the Ajax vehicle

¶35

did not possess valid and effective Driving licence and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶36

3.3 Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the relevant issues for consideration.

¶37

3.4 In order to substantiate the issues and establish the case, the claimant examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. The respondents did not lead evidence nor produced any documents in support of their case.

¶38

3.5 On the basis of the material evidence, both oral

¶39

and documentary and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.10,85,537/- alongwith interest at 9% per annum and directed the respondent No.2/insurer to deposit the compensation amount within thirty days.

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10745 MFA No. 1083 of 2023

¶41

3.6 Being aggrieved by the meager and inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is

¶42

before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶43

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel

¶44

for the appellant that the income of the appellant assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the compensation awarded under different heads is not in accordance with

¶45

the material on record. Therefore, he seeks to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation.

¶46

Per contra, learned counsel representing the insurance company contends that there is no error, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He further contends that the Tribunal awarded just and reasonable compensation under all heads, in accordance with the material evidence, both oral and documentary and the same does not call for interference.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:10745 MFA No. 1083 of 2023

¶49

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully.

¶50

In order to substantiate and establish the aspect

¶51

of negligence and injuries suffered, the claimant has produced Ex.P1 to Ex.P21, out of which Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 are the Police records, which clearly depict registration of FIR

¶52

and laying of the charge sheet against driver of the offending vehicle, which have not been questioned. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly attributed negligence against driver of the offending Ajax vehicle. Ex.P7 to Ex.P21 are the medical bills, discharge summary and other medical records, which clearly depict the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident so also expenses incurred towards medical treatment.

¶53

Now coming to the age, avocation and income of the deceased, though the claimant pleaded that he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month prior to occurrence of the accident, nothing is placed on record to prove the same.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:10745 MFA No. 1083 of 2023

¶56

The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant to be Rs.10,000/- per month, whereas the Legal Services Authority chart prescribes the notional income of Rs.14,500/- per month for the accident of the year 2020. Accordingly, the same is taken as income for computation in the present case as against Rs.10,000/- taken by the Tribunal. The claimant was aged 21 years as on the date of accident and the appropriate multiplier would be '18', which is rightly applied by the tribunal and the same does not call for interference.

¶57

The doctor has opined the disability to an extent of 40% to the left lower limb. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence of the doctor and considering the age, avocation and nature of injuries sustained by the claimant assessed the whole body disability at 30%, which does not call for interference.

¶58

In view of the above, the loss of future earnings

¶59

would be Rs.9,39,600/- (Rs.14500 x 12 x 18 x 30%} as against Rs.6,48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶60

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:10745 MFA No. 1083 of 2023

¶61

11 Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that future prospects requires to be awarded in

¶62

the present case for the reason that there is a whole body disability to an extent of 30%, which would affect the earning capacity of the claimant. However, no cogent material is placed with regard to physical disability or functional disability which would affect the earning capacity of the claimant and according to the opinion expressed by the doctor, the claimant suffered comminuted fracture. Therefore, question of awarding future prospects does not arise in the present case. However, some amount could be awarded towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities.

¶63

The tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain

¶64

and suffering. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award additional amount of Rs.50,000/-. In all, Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under this head.

¶65

The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities. However, this Court deems it appropriate to

¶66

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:10745 MFA No. 1083 of 2023

¶67

award additional amount of Rs.50,000/- under this head.

¶68

In all, Rs.60,000/- is awarded under this head.

¶69

The Tribunal awarded Rs.3,41,537/- towards medical expenses on the basis of the actual bills produced by the claimant, which does not call for interference.

¶70

The Tribunal awarded Rs.16,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment, which is on the lower side. The claimant was in-patient for more than 3 ½ months. Considering the magnitude of injuries suffered by the claimant, at-least eight months is required to recuperate and get back to normal day to day activities. In view of this Court enhancing the income to Rs.14,500/per month, Rs.1,16,000/- (Rs.14,500 x 8) is awarded under this head.

¶71

The tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards food, nourishment and conveyance. Whereas, the claimant was inpatient for a period of 107 days. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.1,07,000/- under this head.

¶72

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:10745 MFA No. 1083 of 2023

¶73

In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.16,64,137/- as against Rs.10,85,537/- awarded by the Tribunal, as

¶74

mentioned in the table below:

¶75

Sl. No.	Head of compensation	Amount of compensation awarded
1	Loss of future earning capacity	Rs.9,39,600-00
2	Pain and suffering	Rs.1,00,000-00
3	Loss of amenities	Rs. 60,000-00
4	Medical expenses	Rs.3,41,537-00
5	Loss of income during laid up period	Rs.1,16,000-00
6	Nourishment and conveyance	Rs.1,07,000-00
	Total	Rs.16,64,137-00

¶76

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶77

O R D E R

¶78

i) The appeal is allowed in part

¶79

ii) The impugned Judgment & Award dated 23.8.2022/6.9.2022 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.696/2021, is modified.

¶80

iii) The appellant/claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.16,64,137/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs sixty-four thousand one hundred

¶81

11 -

¶82

NC: 2024:KHC:10745 MFA No. 1083 of 2023

¶83

and thirty-seven only) as against Rs.10,85,537/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶84

iv) The interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.10,85,537/- is left undisturbed.

¶85

v) The enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited with interest at 6% per annum by the respondent no.2/insurer within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment;

¶86

vi) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant as per the terms of the tribunal upon proper identification.

¶87

vii) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the Tribunal shall stand intact.

¶88

Sd/JUDGE

¶89

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73

¶90

GSS

Santhosha @ Santosha Nagarajappa v. Govardhan Reddy M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosha @ Santosha Nagarajappa v. Govardhan Reddy M

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

The Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Smt Shanthamma @ Shantha

Mr Siddappa Vs Mr Shaffi Hussain

Sri.N.S. Satish Babu Vs M/S Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solution Pvt. Ltd.

Deepak K.G. Vs Sugu G @ Sukumaran

Rathnamma @ Nagarathnamma @ Nagarathna Vs S Raghu

Mahesh D Vs Santosh