Partly allowed

Sri Subramani v. Sri Venkateshappa

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2024MFA/1362/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the compensation awards in two motor vehicle accident claims. The court enhanced global compensation from Rs. 45,000 to Rs. 90,000 for one petitioner and from Rs. 1,05,000 to Rs. 1,75,000 for another, adjusting the interest rate to 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation awarded: Rs. 45,000 for the first petitioner and Rs. 1,75,000 for the second. Interest fixed at 6% per annum.

Sri Subramani Vs Sri Venkateshappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:30755 MFA No. 1362 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1363 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1362 OF 2014 (MV-I)

¶8

C/W

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1363 OF 2014 (MV-I)

¶10

IN MFA NO. 1362/2014

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI SUBRAMANI, S/O LAKSHMAYA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT. HOLAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, MAVAHALLI POST, BANGARPET TQ, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SMT. SUGUNA R REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by PRAJWAL A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI VENKATESHAPPA, S/O VARADAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT KOTIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, HARATHI POST, KOLAR TQ. & DISTRICT-563 101.

¶18

THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMP.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE. NO.41, 2^ND FLOOR,

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:30755 MFA No. 1362 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1363 of 2014

¶20

CRISTU COMPLEX LAVELLE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 31.01.2015)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.27/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, KGF, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

IN MFA NO. 1363/2014

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SRI NANDISH, S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, R/AT NADUPALLI VILLAGE, THAMAKA POST, KOLAR TQ, DISTRICT-563 101.

¶27

...APPELLANT

¶28

(BY SMT. SUGUNA R REDDY, ADVOCATE [V/C])

¶29

AND:

¶30

SRI VENKATESHAPPA, S/O VARADAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT KOTIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, HARATHI POST, KOLAR TQ. & DISTRICT-563 101.

¶31

THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMP.LTD.,

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:30755 MFA No. 1362 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1363 of 2014

¶33

BRANCH OFFICE. NO.41, 2^ND FLOOR, CRISTU COMPLEX LAVELLE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(R-1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V/O DATED 15.03.2024 SRI D VIJAYAKUMAR IS DIRECTED TO TAKE NOTICE FOR R-2 [V/C])

¶36

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.06/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, KGF, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶37

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶38

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶39

In these two appeals, the appellants/petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 23.09.2013 in M.V.C.Nos.27/2010 and 6/2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, KGF ('the Tribunal' for short).

¶40

For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:30755 MFA No. 1362 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1363 of 2014

¶42

The brief facts of the case are that: there was

¶43

an accident on 14.02.2010 at Kempapura Bus stop at Mulbagal Taluk, wherein a Tempo bearing registration No.KA-07-2730 hit against the pedestrians/petitioners causing them the injuries. After taking the treatment, the petitioners have approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation. The said claim were opposed by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal after taking the evidence and hearing both the parties, awarded Rs.45,000/- as global compensation to the petitioner in MFA.No.1362/2014 (MVC.No.27/2010) and Rs.1,05,000/to the petitioner in MFA.No.1363/2014 (MVC.No.06/2012), with interest @ 9% per annum. The Insurance Company has accepted the liability and satisfied the award. The petitioners pleading inadequacy and seeking enhancement of compensation are before this Court.

¶44

Heard the arguments of Smt.Suguna R. Reddy,

¶45

learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.D.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurer.

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:30755 MFA No. 1362 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1363 of 2014

¶47

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner-Subramani has suffered fracture of left shoulder, he was under hospitalization for two days and he was unable to produce the medical bills. Petitioner has laid-up for minimum six months, could not able to do any work and suffered loss of income and for the reason of his inability to place medical evidence, global compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶48

5(a). The petitioner-Nandish is a 15 years old boy, studying in 9^th standard has suffered degloving injuries to his left forearm which caused in permanent disfigurement, which he has to carry throughout his life, which would affect his future for employment and also marriage. The compensation assessed at Rs.1,05,000/- is inadequate and sought for enhancement.

¶49

Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the Tribunal has concluded that there is no medical evidence placed before it for assessment of the injuries affecting in any manner to the

¶50

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:30755 MFA No. 1362 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1363 of 2014

¶51

petitioners. There is no disability sustained by them. Considering the period of treatment and the expenditure incurred, the Tribunal has determined the compensation which is just and proper and there is no need for enhancement and supported the impugned judgment.

¶52

I gave my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed by both sides and perused the materials on record.

¶53

The issue is only regarding quantum of compensation. In respect of petitioner-Subramani, medical records show that he has suffered fracture of left shoulder, he was under hospitalization for two days and medical bills are not produced and therefore, the compensation has to be assessed notionally, taking into consideration the loss of income during laid-up period, loss of amenities and discomforts and pain and suffering is taken into consideration. Considering all the different heads, it is fit to award a sum of Rs.90,000/- as global compensation instead of Rs.45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and there

¶54

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:30755 MFA No. 1362 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1363 of 2014

¶55

shall be an enhancement of Rs.45,000/- which is the just compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶56

Regarding petitioner-Nandish is concerned, admittedly, he is a 15 years old boy, studying 9^th standard. He has suffered degloving injury to left fore arm, which caused him the permanent disfigurement, who was under treatment at R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar, for a period of 22 days and the medical bills amounting to Rs.6,625.62/- were placed before the Tribunal. Degloving injury certainly cause permanent disfigurement, which is severe than the fracture and he has to carry throughout his life. He has underwent pain and suffering, suffered loss of amenities and discomfort and his parents have to attend him during the laid up period.

¶57

9(a). In a case of this nature, compensation shall be a just and it shall not be a penal nor a bonaza. Hence, towards 'pain and sufferings' Rs.50,000/-; towards 'Medical expenses' Rs.10,000/-; 'attendant charges' of Rs.5,000/-; 'food and nourishment' of Rs.10,000/-;

¶58

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:30755 MFA No. 1362 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1363 of 2014

¶59

'traveling expenses' of Rs.3,000/-; 'loss of amenities and discomfort' of Rs.50,000/-; 'loss of four months income for the parents' of Rs.22,000/- (Rs.5,500 X 4); and towards 'disfigurement' Rs.15,000/- is assessed. 'Future medical expenses' is assessed at Rs.10,000/-. Total compensation comes to Rs.1,75,000/- as against Rs.1,05,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and thereby, there shall be an enhancement of Rs.70,000/-. This is the just compensation that the petitioner is entitled for under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶60

Adverting to the rate of interest awarded at 9% by the Tribunal is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the Tribunal has not assigned any special reason. The Insurance Company is not in appeal, the Tribunal has exercised its discretion in awarding 9% interest, it is not proper to interfere with the discretion of the Tribunal. Insofar as enhanced compensation, it is proper to award

¶61

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:30755 MFA No. 1362 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1363 of 2014

¶62

interest at 6% p.a. Hence appeal merits consideration, in the result, the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

The appeals are hereby allowed in part.

¶65

The impugned judgment is modified accordingly.

¶66

The petitioner in MVC.No.27/2010 is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.45,000/- and the petitioner in MVC.No.06/2012 is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.70,000/-.

¶67

The Petitioners are entitled to interest at 6% interest per annum from the date of petitions till the date of deposit.

¶68

The Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment with interest at 6% excluding interest on future medical expenses of Rs.10,000/- in respect of petitioner-Nandish.

¶69

NC: 2024:KHC:30755 MFA No. 1362 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 1363 of 2014

¶70

10 -

¶71

The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to

¶72

the Tribunal along with records.

¶73

SD/(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA) JUDGE

¶74

NR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Sri Subramani v. Sri Venkateshappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Subramani v. Sri Venkateshappa

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

Sri Suryanarayanappa S/O Venkatappa Vs Sri Chalapathi S/O Late K M Chowdappa

Sureshachari S/O Krishnappa Vs Nagaraja R S/O Rangappa

Sri Maregowda S/O Puttaiah Vs Mohammad Hussain S/O Hayanth Sab

Ambarish Vs Sri Vishwanath

Shankaramma Vs Praveen K. S.

Sri Cherian C.T. Vs the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.