Partly allowed

Dinesh M v. Mr Jagadeesh

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2024MFA/159/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court judgment allows the appellant's appeal in part, holding that he is not entitled to compensation for loss of future earnings due to contradictory medical evidence, but awards an additional Rs. 50,000/- for loss of amenities in life.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs. 50,000/-; interest at 6% per annum directed; respondent ordered to deposit within eight weeks.

Dinesh M Vs Mr Jagadeesh — Medical Negligence | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37442 MFA No. 159 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 159 OF 2022 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DINESH M., S/O. MANJAPPA, DRIVER, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. HULISARA SANKRAPURA VILLAGE, ARASALU POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, NOW. C/O. RAVIKUMAR S/O. JATTANAIKA, 3^RD CROSS, TANKMOHALLA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. HANUMESH H N.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MR JAGADEESH S/O. BHEEMANNA, Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, Location: HIGH (OWNER CUM - DRIVER OF LORRY COURT OF BEARING REG NO. KA-16-C-2147), KARNATAKA R/O. CHIKKAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶12

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., B.H. ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA 577201, POLICY NO. 60420331146260005440

¶13

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH, V/O. DATED 16.11.2023)

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:37442 MFA No. 159 of 2022

¶15

¶16

THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.01.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.808/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT-8, SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

Heard Sri. Hanumesh H.N., learned counsel for appellant

¶21

as well as Sri.Anup Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶22

Dissatisfied with the amount that is awarded as compensation and raising a contention that the appellant is entitled to compensation under the head loss of future earnings, this appeal is filed challenging the order that is rendered by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-8, Shivamogga, in MVC No.808/2017 dated 27.01.2021.

¶23

Arguing the matter, Sri.Hanumesh H.N. for appellant submits that the appellant sustained fracture of right tibia and fibula and underwent surgery. Though CW1 spoke in clear terms that the disability in respect of the particular limb is

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:37442 MFA No. 159 of 2022

¶26

50% and in respect of whole body is 17%, the Tribunal did not award any compensation under the head loss of future earnings. Learned counsel also states that the compensation granted under all other heads is also low. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement of compensation.

¶27

Per contra, Sri.Anup Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that the evidence of CW1 is itself contradictory and CW1 stated that he conducted surgery without checking any X-ray before doing such surgery. Learned counsel further submits that during the course of giving evidence at one time CW1 stated that there was fracture of right tibia only and there was no injury to fibula, again during the course of re-examination he stated that both tibia and fibula were fractured. Also CW1 did not state on what basis he assessed the percentage of disability.

¶28

Learned counsel Sri.Anup Seetharama Rao further submits that the version of the appellant is that he is a driver by profession. The accident occurred in the year 2015 and in the year 2016 the appellant renewed his Driving Licence which itself goes to show that there is no disability. Learned counsel thereby seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:37442 MFA No. 159 of 2022

¶31

Discussing the evidentiary value of CW1 at length, the Tribunal ultimately gave its finding that the evidence of CW1 cannot be based to hold that the appellant suffered permanent physical disability. As rightly contended by Sri.Anup Seetharama Rao, CW1 initially stated that there was fracture of right tibia only and later during the course of re-examination he stated that there was fracture of fibula also. Surprisingly CW1 contended that he did not check any X-rays before doing surgery and even after conducting the surgery. There is no denial of the fact that the appellant renewed his driving licence after the accident. Having considered these aspects, the Tribunal rightly held that the appellant is not entitled for loss of future earnings. This Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the said finding.

¶32

However, having considered the fact that the appellant sustained grievous injury due to the accident and underwent surgery, this Court is of the view that the appellant would not have attended his normal pursuits at-least for a period of three months. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.16,000/- under the head loss of earnings during laid up period. Also the Tribunal did not award any amount toward loss

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37442 MFA No. 159 of 2022

¶34

of amenities in life. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the sum that is awarded by the Tribunal through the impugned order. Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶37

ii) The compensation that is awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-8, Shivamogga, through orders in MVC No.808/2017 dated 27.01.2021 is enhanced by Rs.50,000/-.

¶38

iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶39

iv) The second respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶40

v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

¶41

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶42

AP CT:TSM, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Dinesh M v. Mr Jagadeesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh M v. Mr Jagadeesh

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

Chandramma Vs K M Vinayak

The Divisional Controller Vs Shruthi G C

The Manager Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Rangu Naik

Gangamma Vs the Manager

The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Saraswathamma

Thanfi Kader. M. P. Vs H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Limited