Allowed

Kariyappa M.C. v. Future General India

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2024MFA/1196/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured in a road traffic accident sought enhancement of Tribunal award of about Rs.1.97 lakh. The High Court re-assessed compensation under heads of pain and suffering, medical expenses, attendant charges, loss of income and loss of amenities, totalling Rs.3,58,000, and granted further compensation of Rs.1,62,000 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.1,62,000 with interest at 6% p.a. from date of petition till realization, to be deposited by insurer within six weeks.

Kariyappa M.C. Vs Future General India — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:30788 MFA No. 1196 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1196 OF 2014 (MV)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

KARIYAPPA M.C., S/O CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.449, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS ROAD, PANCHASHEELA NAGAR, MUDALA PLAYA, BANGALORE-560072.

¶6

APPELLANT

¶7

(BY SRI. HARISHITH .S ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRIKANTH M)

¶8

AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.18/1, OLD NO.125/A, 3RD FLOOR, ASHOKA PILLAR ROAD, 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560082.

¶11

M/S MINERVA TOURS AND TRAVELS PVT. LTD., NO.25/7, & 8, MUNIBASAPPA BUILDING, LALBAGH FORT ROAD, BANGALORE-560004.

¶12

RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI. B PRADEEP FOR R1.,ADVOCATE; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DT 21.02.2022)

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:30788 MFA No. 1196 of 2014

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.11.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.2045/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC,.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

The present appeal is filed by the claimant seeking for enhancement of the compensation, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the judgment and award dated 07.11.2013 passed in MVC.No.2045/2012 by the Court of Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City1 wherein the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of `1,97,000/-.

¶21

The present appeal being one for enhancement of compensation, the findings of the Tribunal on negligence and liability having remained un-challenged, the same is not considered in this judgment.

¶22

With regard to the quantum of compensation it is

¶23

relevant to note that the claimant aged 44 years, who is a

¶24

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:30788 MFA No. 1196 of 2014

¶26

BMTC driver, sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident which occurred on 23.08.2011. It is forthcoming from the wound certificate (Ex.P.5) that the claimant has sustained comminuted fracture of patella and fracture of right fibula apart from simple other injuries. It is forthcoming form the discharge summary (Ex.P.6) that the claimant was treated as an inpatient from 23.08.2011 to 26.08.2011. The claimant has undergone a surgery to treat the fracture of the patella and the fracture of the right fibula has been conservatively treated. The discharge summary (Ex.P.11) discloses that the claimant was

¶27

once again treated as an inpatient from 11.02.2012 till 13.02.2012 when the implant has been removed. The claimant has examined the Doctor (PW.2) who has deposed regarding the injuries sustained by the claimant, the treatment undertaken as well as the disability.

¶28

The Tribunal noticing the fact that the claimant is a BMTC driver and had produced 9 salary slips (Ex.P.9) has recorded a finding that gross salary of the claimant is 14,346.36/-. It is forthcoming that the salary slip for the month of August 2011 (Ex.P.9) discloses the gross pay of 14,346.36/-. For the month of September 2011 the salary slip

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:30788 MFA No. 1196 of 2014

¶30

discloses that no salary was paid since he did not report for work the whole month. The salary slip in the month of October 2011 discloses that only sum of 874/- was paid towards nonpaid daily allowance since he did not report for work the whole month. The salary slip for the month of November 2011 discloses that the claimant was paid total sum of 43,746/being basic pay, arrears of DA and HRA. The salary slip for the month of December 2011 discloses that the gross pay is 14,349/-. The salary slip for January 2012 discloses that the gross pay is 8,820.13/- since the claimant was absent for 12 days and was paid salary only for 19 days when he was present for work. The pay slip for February 2012, March 2012 and April 2012 discloses that no payment has been made since he did not report for work for the said months. It is clear that the claimant has not received salary in the month of September 2011, October 2011, February 2012, March 2012 and April 2012 and had received only a sum of `8,820.13/- in the month of January 2012 since he worked for 19 days and was absent for 12 days.

¶31

The Tribunal has awarded loss of pay and medical allowance for a period of 2 months in a sum of `28,692/-. The

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:30788 MFA No. 1196 of 2014

¶33

Tribunal has not discussed as to how it has awarded loss of pay only for 2 months. It is clear that the claimant was not paid for 4 months as noticed above and was paid only for 19 days in the month of January 2012. The claimant having incurred loss towards the same, compensation towards the same is required to be awarded as loss of income. Hence, the loss of income is re-assessed as (14,346 X 4) = 57,384/- and the partial loss of pay for the month of January 2012 is assessed as 5,526/-. Hence, a total sum of 62,910/- rounded of to 63,000/- is required to be awarded towards loss of income as against `28,692/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶34

Although the claimant has examined a Doctor, since he has continued to be employed as a driver in BMTC. It is clear that the question of awarding compensation towards disability does not arise. Further the claimant has also not adduced any evidence to demonstrate as to how, by virtue of accident he has not received any amount/increment that he would otherwise have received.

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:30788 MFA No. 1196 of 2014

¶36

Keeping in mind the aforementioned, the

¶37

compensation is re-assessed as follows:

¶38

i) Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and the period of treatment, the compensation towards pain and suffering is re-assessed as 70,000/- as against 40,000/awarded by the Tribunal;

¶39

ii) Having regard to the fact that the claimant has produced medical bills in total sum of 1,13,118/- it is just and proper that the compensation towards medical expenses be awarded in a sum of 1,15,000/-;

¶40

iii) The Tribunal has awarded sum of 15,000/- towards food, conveyance and other expenses during treatment period. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and the period of treatment, it is just and proper that the compensation towards the attendant charges be re-assessed as 50,000/-;

¶41

iv) Towards loss of income during period of treatment, the compensation is re-assessed as 63,000/- as against 28,692/- awarded by the Tribunal, having regard to what is stated at para No.5 hereinabove;

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:30788 MFA No. 1196 of 2014

¶43

v) The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards

¶44

loss of amenities. Having regard to the nature of injuries, the loss of amenities is assessed at `60,000/-.

¶45

In view of the aforementioned, the quantum of

¶46

compensation under various heads is re-assessed a follows:

¶47

Sl. No.	Heads	Amount awarded by the Tribunal (`)	Amount awarded by this Court (`)
1.	Pain and suffering	40000.00	70000.00
2.	Medical expenses	113118.00	115000.00
4.	Food, conveyance and other expenses during treatment period	15000.00	50000.00
5.	Loss of pay on medical leave period	28692.00	63000.00
6.	Loss of amenities	00.00	60000.00
	Total	196810.00	358000.00

¶48

Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled for further

¶49

compensation of (358000/- – 196810/-) = 1,61,190/rounded of to 1,62,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶50

In view of the aforementioned, the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i) The appeal is allowed in part;

¶53

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:30788 MFA No. 1196 of 2014

¶54

ii) The judgment and award dated 07.11.2013 passed in MVC.No.2045/2012 by the Court of Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City, is modified to the extent stated herein. In all other respects, the judgment and award of the Tribunal remain unaltered;

¶55

iii) The claimant is entitled to further compensation of `1,62,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal;

¶56

iv) Respondent No.1 – insurer is directed to deposit the entire enhanced compensation of `1,62,000/- together with accrued interest within six weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶57

v) After deposit, the entire enhanced compensation with accrued interest shall be disbursed to the appellant/claimant;

¶58

vi) The Registry to draw the modified award accordingly;

¶59

vii) No costs.

¶60

Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶61

PNV - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Kariyappa M.C. v. Future General India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kariyappa M.C. v. Future General India

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

Hottemanchaiah Vs Chowdegowda

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt Pushpalatha

Riyaz Vs Moula Hussain

Kum Keerthana Reddy Vs Sri Krishnamurthy C

Rathnamma Vs Siddegowda

Official Liquidator of M/S Mother Care (India) Ltd. (in Liqn) Vs Sri Prakash Lachman Ahuja