Partly allowed

Rakshith H S v. Nafeej Ahamad

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2024MFA/129/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Aggrieved by a Motor Vehicle Accident claim award, the High Court enhanced compensation by applying Supreme Court precedents on disability, awarding amounts for pain and suffering and loss of parental income.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.2,90,800/- to Rs.4,65,800/-, carrying interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition excluding the 155 days for which delay was condoned.

Rakshith H S Vs Nafeej Ahamad — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:11863 MFA No. 129 of 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 129 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAKSHITH H S S/O SOMASHEKARA, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS R/AT HOSANAGARA, KONANURU HOBLI, ARKALGUDU TALUK - 573201 (SINCE THE APPELLANT IS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER BY NAME SMT.BHANU, W/O SOMASHEKARA)

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K .,ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

NAFEEJ AHAMAD S/O SHAFI AHAMAD BANTENAHALLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201

¶14

THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD, 1ST FLOOR, KRUTHIKA ARCADE, NEAR N.R.CIRCLE, HASSAN - 573201

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.PRADEEP.,ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DTD: 22.11.23 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11863 MFA No. 129 of 2018

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1116/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, ARKALGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Aggrieved by the award dated 01.04.2017, passed in MVC No.1116/2015, by the Senior Civil Judge And MACT, Arkalgud, the claimant is before this court seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶21

The claim petition was filed seeking

¶22

compensation of an amount of Rs.11,85,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. The claimant was aged nine years as on the date of the accident. The case of the claimant is that on 08.01.2015, the claimant was returning from Konanuru School in order to go to his village and was walking on the left side of the road in front of K.S.R.T.C. bus stop of Konanuru at 4.45

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11863 MFA No. 129 of 2018

¶24

p.m., at that time the driver of the lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. As a result, the claimant fell on the road and the front tyre of the lorry passed on the left foot of the claimant and the left feet of the claimant was amputated and he also sustained grievous injuries to other parts of the body. The doctor had deposed that the claimant had sustained 50% disability to the limb and the court below had taken 16% disability to the whole body and granted compensation as per the table below:

¶25

	Heads		Co	mpensation Awarded
1.	Pain and Agony	:	Rs.	50,000/-
2.	Medical Expenses	:	Rs.	1,28,800/-
3.	Food, Conveyance & Attendant Charges	:	Rs.	5,000/-
4.	Loss of Future marriage prospects	:	Rs.	25,000/-
5.	Loss of Future income due to disability	:	Rs.	72,000/-
6.	Loss of future amenities	:	Rs.	10,000/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	2,90,800/-

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11863 MFA No. 129 of 2018

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MASTER MALLIKARJUN V. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED¹ , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of disability from 10-30% had granted an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- under the head of ‘ pain and suffering already undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience, and discomforts, etc., and loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability ’, whereas in this case the court below had granted only an amount of Rs.72,000/-. It is submitted that the compensation that was awarded by the court below is not a just and reasonable compensation.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent /

¶29

insurance company submits that in fact in MASTER MALLIKARJUN’s case referred to supra the Hon'ble Apex

¶30

1 AIR 2014 Supreme Court 736

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11863 MFA No. 129 of 2018

¶32

Court had not granted any amount under the head of ‘food, conveyance and attendant charges’, loss of marriage prospects and amenities’. If MASTER MALLIKARUJUN’s case is to be applied the claimant will not be entitled for compensation under other heads.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel on either

¶34

side, perused the entire material on record. As per the evidence placed, the court below had taken the disability at 16% basing on the evidence of the doctor that the claimant had sustained 16% disability. The claimant is aged 9 years as on the date of the accident and the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MASTER MALLIKARJUN referred to supra applies to this case. In the said judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court had under the head of pain when the disability is upto 30% and from 1030% had considered an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Hence under the head of ‘ pain and suffering already undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience, and

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:11863 MFA No. 129 of 2018

¶36

discomforts, etc., and loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability ’ the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, under the head of ‘loss of earning to the parents’ Considering the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority on national income, since the accident has occurred in the year 2015, this Court is taking the income at Rs.9,000/-, and awarding an amount of Rs.27,000/- , towards medical expenses the court below had granted an amount of Rs.1,28,800/- which is as per the bills and receipts produced and no interference is called for.

¶37

In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M. MALATHI AND ANOTHER² , the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Legal Expenses .

¶38

The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads:

¶39

2 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:11863 MFA No. 129 of 2018

¶42

By Tribunal By this Court
Description
pain and suffering Rs.
already undergone and
to be suffered in
future, mental and
physical shock,
hardship, 1,62,000/- 3,00,000/-
inconvenience, and
discomforts, etc., and
loss of amenities in life
on account of
permanent disability’
Loss of Income to the Rs.
Parents 0 27,000/-
Medical Expenses Rs. 1,28,800/- 1,28,800/-
Legal Expenses Rs. 0 10,000/-
Total Rs. 2,90,800/- 4,65,800/-
Enhancement 1,75,000/-

¶43

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed ,

¶44

enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.2,90,800/-

¶45

to Rs.4,65,800/- .

¶46

i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶47

ii) This court by an order dated 22.11.2023 had condoned the delay of 155 days, on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled

¶48

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:11863 MFA No. 129 of 2018

¶49

for the interest for the delayed period. Hence, the claimant will not be entitled for interest for the period of 155 days.

¶50

iii) The respondent - insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

¶51

iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶52

v) No costs.

¶53

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶54

SD/JUDGE

¶55

Rakshith H S v. Nafeej Ahamad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakshith H S v. Nafeej Ahamad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J Gopinath Vs Kousalya Gopinath

Smt Vaishnavi M Vs Srikanth R

Sri. Nasappa Vs Smt. Varalakshmi

Sri Jagadeesha Vs Nagalakshmi K L

The Manager Vs Smt. Lakshmamma

Smt Saroja Vs Sri Ravikumar