Partly allowed

Sri K M Venkateshappa v. Sri T Giresha

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2024MFA/202/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced motor accident compensation from Rs. 9,35,800 to Rs. 10,65,750 for loss of future earnings. It increased the whole body disability to 35% (from 30%) due to total loss of vision in one eye and permanent limb disability, applying a multiplier of 14 and adding 25% for future prospects.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs. 3,34,950/- with 6% interest; Respondent to deposit within eight weeks.

Sri K M Venkateshappa Vs Sri T Giresha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39512 MFA No. 202 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 202 OF 2023 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. K.M. VENKATESHAPPA, S/O M. MUNIYAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT VAIZAKURU VILLAGE, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. N. GOPAL KRISHNA, ADVOCATE AND MS. SUSHMITHA G, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. T. GIRESHA, S/O THIPPANNA, MAJOR, RESIDING AT STREET ROAD LANE, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, JAYAJEEVANRAMA COLONY, CHINTAMANI, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 563 125.

¶13

THE IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SRI SHANTHI TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, NO.141, 3RD MAIN, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHABD, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 29.05.2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39512 MFA No. 202 of 2023

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.11.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3969/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MACT-15, BENGALURU (SCCH-15), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

Heard Sri.Gopal Krishna.N learned counsel who represents Ms. Sushmitha.G learned counsel on record for the appellant as well as Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

¶21

The injured is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. He challenges the order that is rendered by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in M.V.C. No.3969/2020 dated 29.11.2022. As against the claim for Rs.20,00,000/-, the tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39512 MFA No. 202 of 2023

¶23

Rs.9,35,800/- as compensation and aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed.

¶24

Sri.Gopal Krishna.N, arguing the matter contends

¶25

that the appellant as an Agriculturist was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, due to the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident he became permanently and completely disabled. Though through the evidence of PW-2, the loss of vision to one of the eyes is established and likewise though through the evidence of PW-3 the other physical disability is established, yet the tribunal took the whole body disability as 30% and awarded a meager sum as compensation under the head loss of future earnings. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement of compensation.

¶26

Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel, representing the Insurance Company, on the otherhand, states that there is no permanent physical disability. The appellant did not examine any of the doctors who treated him. However, considering the totality of evidence, the

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:39512 MFA No. 202 of 2023

¶29

tribunal awarded justifiable sum as compensation and therefore the appeal itself is not maintainable.

¶30

The tribunal, subjecting the evidence of PW-1 to 3,

¶31

RWs 1 and 2, Ex.P-5, Ex.P-7 to P-21 came to a conclusion

¶32

that the justifiable sum which the appellant is entitled to as compensation is Rs.9,35,800/- divided under following

¶33

heads:-

¶34

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Pain, shock and suffering	75,000-00
Loss of amenities	50,000-00
Loss of income during the laid up period	43,500-00
Attendant's charges, Extra diet and conveyance	27,000-00
Medical expenses	9,500-00
Loss of Future Income	7,30,800-00
Total	9,35,800-00

¶35

It is not in dispute that the appellant, apart from sustaining a grievous injury to his right eye, also sustained fracture of left distal femur and injuries to 4^th and 5^th metacarpals. Likewise, it is not in dispute that the

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39512 MFA No. 202 of 2023

¶37

appellant underwent open reduction and internal fixation with LCP for his left femur.

¶38

Coming to the injury to the eye, the evidence of PW-2 is that the appellant was treated at Minto Ophthalmic Hospital, Bengaluru for his Right eye scleraCorneal tear with uveal tissue prolapsed. PW-2 states that the appellant underwent Corneal tear repair with iris obcission under local anesthesia. PW-2 also deposed that the appellant lost the vision of right eye totally and permanently. He assessed the visual disability as 30%.

¶39

The evidence of PW-3 is that he examined the appellant clinically and radiologically. He states that X-ray shows united fracture of left femur with internal fixation with LCP. Giving details about the evaluation of disability, PW-3 states that the disability in respect of left lower limb is 53% and in respect of whole body 18%. Having considered the totality of evidence, the tribunal took the whole body disability as 30%. However, considering the fact that there is total loss of vision to one of the eyes and

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39512 MFA No. 202 of 2023

¶41

further there is permanent physical disability due to the injury to one of the lower limbs, this Court considers desirable to take the disability in respect of whole body as 35%.

¶42

9.Undisputedly, the appellant was aged about 44 years by the date of accident. Therefore, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's Case (2009 ACJ 1298 SC), the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '14'. Also having considered the grievousness in the injuries sustained which resulted in loss of vision totally to one of the eyes, apart from permanent physical disability due to fracture of one of the lower limbs and taking into consideration the age of the appellant, basing on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 25% of the actual earnings are required to be added towards further prospects. This Court is not inclined to disturb the finding given by the tribunal that the notional income to be taken

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39512 MFA No. 202 of 2023

¶44

is Rs.14,500/-. Thus, applying aforementioned

¶45

parameters, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to under the head loss of earnings due to permanent physical disability is as under:-

¶46

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Notional monthly income	14,500-00
Annual income	1,74,000-00
Add 25% towards future prospects	2,17,500-00
Apply appropriate multiplier '14'	30,45,000-00
Loss of future earnings, the permanent physical disability being 35%	10,65,750-00

¶47

The tribunal through the impugned order

¶48

awarded a sum of Rs.7,30,800/- toward loss of future earnings. However, the justifiable sum which the appellant is entitled to is Rs.10,65,750/-. Thus, the enhancement will be Rs.3,34,950/- (Rs.10,65,750/- -Rs.7,30,800). This Court does not find any other grounds to interfere with any other portion of the impugned order. Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following:-

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:39512 MFA No. 202 of 2023

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶52

ii. The compensation that is granted by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru through orders in M.V.C. No.3969/2020 dated 29.11.2022 is enhanced by Rs.3,34,950/-.

¶53

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

¶54

iv. The 2^nd respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶55

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

¶56

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶57

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

Sri K M Venkateshappa v. Sri T Giresha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K M Venkateshappa v. Sri T Giresha

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

Sri Venkatesh T M Vs the Manager

Smt. Pinki Devi Vs Cheeranda.M.Muddappa

Mohammed Mijaan Vs the Divisional Controller Ksrtc

Narasimha Murthy H R Vs Krishnaiah L C

The Managing Director Vs Smt. Kempalakshmamma

Narayana Vs Vinod Raje Urs