Partly allowed

Dr. Arjun K v. M/S Lithium Urban Technologies

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2024MFA/2041/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Miscellaneous First Appeal challenges the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 2,71,300 as compensation. The High Court enhanced the award by Rs. 2,29,000 to account for loss of earnings due to disability and increased pain and suffering, directing the insurer to deposit the amount within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs. 2,29,000; interest at 6% p.a. directed; insurer directed to deposit within eight weeks.

Dr. Arjun K Vs M/S Lithium Urban Technologies — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:18799-DB MFA No. 2041 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2041 OF 2020 (MV-I)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

DR. ARJUN K S/O DR PANDURANGA KABUBAL AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.16/06, ISR ROAD K L S NURSING HOME HOSPET P.O AND TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT, PINCODE-583201.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL - ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

M/S LITHIUM URBAN TECHNOLOGIES PRVIATE LIMITED NO.158, 1^ST FLOOR SEETHARAMAPALYA VILLAGE MAHADEVAPURA, K R PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU-560 048 BY ITS MANAGER.

¶16

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. NO.35/1, FORTUNE PARK 1^ST FLOOR, PARK ROAD TASKAR TOWN, SHIVAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 001, BY ITS MANAGER.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. K. NAGARAJAIAH – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; RESPONDENT NO.1 IS SERVED)

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:18799-DB MFA No. 2041 of 2020

¶20

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.7593/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII-ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XX-A.C.M.M AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BY AWARDING TRHE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION.

¶21

THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA .J., DELIVERED THE

¶22

FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard Shri Chandrashekar P Patil, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Shri K. Nagarajaiah, learned counsel who is representing Respondent No.2.

¶25

Challenge in this appeal is the order that is rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, in MVC No.7593/2016 dated 29.09.2018.

¶26

The appellant in the capacity of injured, moved

¶27

an application claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- in total. The Tribunal which dealt with the matter, having considered the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Exhibits P6 to P16, came to a conclusion that the just compensation that

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:18799-DB MFA No. 2041 of 2020

¶29

can be awarded is Rs.2,71,300/- and accordingly, awarded said amount as compensation. Dissatisfied with the sum award, the claimant is before this Court.

¶30

Making his submission with regard to the merits of the matter, Shri Chandrashekar P. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, a Doctor by profession though was earning huge sum as on the date of the accident, but due to the injuries sustained, became permanently disabled and he lost his earning capacity. Learned counsel also states that though through the evidence of PW-2, it is well-established that the appellant underwent surgery and the disability in respect of the left lower limb is 28% and in respect of the whole body, it is 9.4%, yet the Tribunal did not award any sum towards ‘Loss of earnings due to disability’, which is highly unjustifiable. Learned counsel also contends that the Tribunal, through the impugned order, awarded only a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head ‘Pain and suffering” However, the appellant suffered multiple injuries and therefore, the same needs enhancement.

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:18799-DB MFA No. 2041 of 2020

¶32

Per contra, Shri K. Nagarajaiah who is

¶33

appearing for Respondent No.2 states that the Tribunal has awarded just sum as compensation and indeed, the appellant is continuing his profession as Doctor and is earning handful sum and therefore, no amount is required to be awarded under the head ‘Loss of earnings due to disability’.

¶34

It is not in dispute that the appellant is a Doctor by profession. Equally it is not in dispute that due to the accident, he sustained fracture of left tibia and Intermedullary Nailing under epidural was done during the course of admission into hospital. He also sustained fracture of T4 – T5 spinum bone. It is also brought on record that the appellant took treatment as in-patient from 29.04.2016 to 03.05.2016.

¶35

Having considered the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment he took, we are of the considered view that under the head ‘Pain and suffering’, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.75,000/-.

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:18799-DB MFA No. 2041 of 2020

¶37

Coming to ‘Loss of earnings due to disability’,

¶38

though PW-2 deposed that the disability in respect of whole body is 9.4%, however, having considered the fact that the appellant as a Doctor by profession would not be required to be under mobility for long period and in standing position, we intend to take the disability in respect of the whole body as 5%. Coming to the earnings of the appellant as on the date of the accident, no substantial proof is produced with regard to his actual earnings. Therefore, for the purpose of calculating compensation, we intend to take the nominal income of the appellant as Rs.20,000/- per month. It is not in dispute that the appellant by the date of accident, was aged about 27 years. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier applied as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation ((2009 (6) SCC 121)) case is ‘17’. Therefore, the ‘Loss of earnings due to disability’ comes to Rs.2,04,000/(20,000 x 12 x 17 x 5%),

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:18799-DB MFA No. 2041 of 2020

¶40

Thus, having regard to the discussion that went on supra, the enhancement of compensation would be to an extent of Rs.2,29,000/- (Rs.2,04,000 under the head ‘Loss of earnings due to disability’ and Rs.25,000/- under the head ‘Pain and Suffering’ which is enhanced). Thus, the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The appeal is allowed in part.

¶43

The amount awarded as compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore through the orders in MVC No.7593/2016 dated 29.09.2018, is enhanced by Rs.2,29,000/-.

¶44

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

¶45

The second respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced amount i.e., Rs.2,29,000/- within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:18799-DB MFA No. 2041 of 2020

¶48

On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw

the entire amount.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

Dr. Arjun K v. M/S Lithium Urban Technologies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Arjun K v. M/S Lithium Urban Technologies

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. Veerabhadrayya Potanhal K S Vs the Authorised Officer and Regional Manager

Shri. Krishna D Vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited

Shri. D Govindaraju Vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited

Sri. Benakappa Vs Sri. B. Singappa

Sri Sabyasachisengupta Vs Smt Debasreesircar

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs M/S Sreekanh Constructions