Partly allowed

Sri K Dharmapal v. Mrs Naziya Noor

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2024MFA/1088/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured in a motorcycle collision appealed for enhancement of motor accident compensation. The High Court retained the tribunal's computation of loss of income and disability but increased amounts under heads of nourishment, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, enhancing total compensation to Rs.10,91,620 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.9,91,000 to Rs.10,91,620 with 6% p.a. interest, payable by insurer within four weeks; tribunal's other terms intact.

Sri K Dharmapal Vs Mrs Naziya Noor — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:9022 MFA No. 1088 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1088 OF 2022 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. K. DHARMAPAL, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/O LATE ELIYA POOJARY, RESIDENT OF: SRI RAKSHA NILAYA, KADEKAR POST AND VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 103.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH B., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

MRS. NAZIYA NOOR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O SHAHZAD AHAMED, RESIDENT OF H.NO.13-74-A, ACHARYA COMPOUND, BALIKERE, KODAVOOR POST, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 106.

¶13

FUTURE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 3RD FLOOR LALBAGH TOWER, BALLAL BAGH, M.G. ROAD, MANGALORE, KARNATAKA - 575 003, BY ITS MANAGER.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.C.SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 29.02.2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9022 MFA No. 1088 of 2022

¶16

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.11.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.1000/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

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

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 05.11.2020 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Udupi (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.1000/2018. This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶20

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

¶21

their status before the tribunal.

¶22

Brief facts of the case are as under;

¶23

That on 24.10.2017 at about 1.15 p.m., the claimant

¶24

was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-20EB-9239 from Kuthpady towards Kadekar by observing all

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9022 MFA No. 1088 of 2022

¶26

traffic rules on the correct side of the road, when he reached near Kannarpady temple cross road, the Bolero Pickup bearing registration No.KA-20-AA-2067 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant. He was immediately shifted to Hi-Tech Medicare Hospital, Ambalpady, Udupi, wherein first aid treatment was given. Thereafter, to KMC Hospital, Manipal, wherein he took treatment and admitted as an inpatient for 10 days and again for a period of 4 days. The claimant was discharged with an advice of the follow up treatment. The claimant spent Rs.4,00,000/- towards medical and hospital charges.

¶27

3.1 It is stated that the claimant was hale and healthy prior to the occurrence of accident. He was working as a Class-I PWD Contractor and earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. Due to the occurrence of accident and injuries suffered, the claimant is unable to do his work normally as he was doing prior to the occurrence of

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9022 MFA No. 1088 of 2022

¶29

accident. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

¶30

3.2 On service of notice, respondent No.1 did not appear before the tribunal and he was placed ex parte . Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared before the tribunal and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶31

3.3 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration.

¶32

3.4 In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the case, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1, the Doctor as PW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P22. On the other hand, respondent did not adduce their evidence either oral or documentary.

¶33

3.5 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:9022 MFA No. 1088 of 2022

¶36

counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded

¶37

compensation of Rs.9,91,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a.

¶38

3.6 Being aggrieved by the indequate compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and award.

¶39

It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for appellant-claimant that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding inadequate compensation, which calls for interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶40

Per contra , learned counsel for respondentInsurance Company contends that the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for interference. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the appeal.

¶41

Having heard the learned counsel for appellantclaimant and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, perused the impugned judgment and award, it

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:9022 MFA No. 1088 of 2022

¶43

is seen that the claimant has produced the documents as Exs.P1 to P22, out of which, Exs.P1 to P5, P7 are the Police records, which clearly depict the filing of FIR and laying of charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle and same has not been challenged or controverted. Therefore, the tribunal rightly attributed the negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle. Exs.P6, P8 to P22 are the medical records, financial statement of the claimant and other documents.

¶44

Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation, income and disability, it is stated that the age of the claimant was 69 years as on the date of occurrence of accident and the tribunal applied the multiplier at '5' and the tribunal taken the income at Rs.39,000/- per month based on the income tax returns produced by the claimant at Exs.P20 and P21, which do not call for interference and the same are retained.

¶45

PW.2-doctor has opined that there is disability of 32% to the left lower limb, but he has not assessed

¶46

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:9022 MFA No. 1088 of 2022

¶47

disability to the whole body. He has admitted in his cross examination that he has failed to assess the disability to the right lower limb. Therefore, the tribunal being not satisfied with the assessment of the disability by PW.2Doctor, assessed the whole body disability at 16%. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with regard to loss of future income of Rs.3,74,400/- is retained.

¶48

The tribunal awarded Rs.1,56,000/- towards loss

¶49

of income during laid up period, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶50

The tribunal awarded Rs.3,25,220/- towards medical expenses, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶51

The tribunal awarded Rs.35,000/- towards future medical expenses, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶52

The tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards nourishment, attendant and conveyance expenses.

¶53

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:9022 MFA No. 1088 of 2022

¶54

However, the claimant was inpatient for 26 days. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award

¶55

Rs.26,000/- under this head.

¶56

The tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards pain, suffering and trauma. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.1,00,000/- under this head.

¶57

The tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort, future happiness, permanent disability and shortening of life. I deem it appropriate to award an additional amount of Rs.25,000/-. In all, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.75,000/- under this head.

¶58

In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.10,91,620/- as

¶59

against Rs.9,91,000/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶60

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of future income	3,74,400-00
Loss of income during laid up period	1,56,000-00
Medical expenses	3,25,220-00
Future medical expenses	35,000-00

¶61

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:9022 MFA No. 1088 of 2022

¶62

Nourishment, attendant, conveyance	26,000-00
expenses
Pain, suffering and trauma	1,00,000-00
Loss of amenities, discomfort, future	75,000-00
happiness, permanent disability and shortening of life
TOTAL	10,91,620-00

¶63

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;

¶66

ii) The judgment and award dated 05.11.2020 passed in MVC.No.1000/2018 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Udupi, is modified;

¶67

iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.10,91,620/- as against Rs.9,91,000/- awarded by the tribunal;

¶68

iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall

¶69

be paid with interest @ 6% p.a. by the respondent-Insurance Company within a

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:9022 MFA No. 1088 of 2022

¶71

10 -

¶72

period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶73

v) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant upon proper verification;

¶74

vi) All other terms and conditions stipulated by

¶75

the tribunal shall stand intact;

¶76

vii) The original records shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith.

¶77

Sd/JUDGE

¶78

CPN CT: BHK

Sri K Dharmapal v. Mrs Naziya Noor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K Dharmapal v. Mrs Naziya Noor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.V Manjunatha Vs Kesavan

Kokilavani Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Sri Neelakantaiah Vs Mr Tajammul Pasha

Sri T B Rajanna Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kumari Lakshmi G

Vasantha K a Vs Yatish N