Partly allowed

Smt Tejashwini D R @ Teja R v. the Branch Manager

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2024MFA/2304/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant sought enhancement of compensation for injuries suffered in a road traffic accident. The High Court enhanced compensation from Rs.8,00,500 to Rs.8,72,832 by adding loss of income during laid-up period and increasing amounts for loss of amenities and future medical expenses, with interest at 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.8,72,832 with 6% interest (excluding future medical expenses head), Insurance Company directed to deposit within six weeks.

Smt Tejashwini D R @ Teja R Vs the Branch Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38414 MFA No. 2304 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2304 OF 2018 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT TEJASHWINI D R @ TEJA R W/O RANGASWAMY M AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO 77 2ND CROSS, JANATHA COLONY KUMBARAHALLI, CHIKKABANAVARA BENGALURU - 560090

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K T.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE BRANCH MANAGER THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD NO 28, EAST WING 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING M G ROAD, BENGALURU – 560001.

¶13

SMT BHAGYALAKSHMI R D/O RANGANATH NO 14, AKASH NAGAR JAYALAKSHMAMMA LAYOUT NEAR HDFC ATM, NEAR NARAYADOORVANINAGAR BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU – 560016.

¶14

SRI RANGASWAMY M S/O MUDDAPPA NO 165/A, KUMBARAHALLI CHIKKABANAVARA, BENGALURU - 560090

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38414 MFA No. 2304 of 2018

¶17

(BY SRI. D.VIJAY KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1: NOTICE TO R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 20.09.2023)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.2928/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 10^TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.09.2017 passed by the Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-16) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.2928/2016.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 23.02.2016 at about 10.30 a.m., when

¶24

the claimant was proceeding in a Tata Indica car bearing registration No.KA-53/A-2637 on Sira – Tumkur road,

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38414 MFA No. 2304 of 2018

¶26

when the car reached near Apna Hotel, at that time, the driver of the car drove the same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the vehicle and hit against the portion of an unknown lorry. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶27

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act, seeking compensation. It was pleaded that she spent significant amount towards medical expenses, conveyance charges and other related costs. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶28

Upon service of notice, the respondent No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent Nos.2 and 3, despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal and were placed ex-parte.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38414 MFA No. 2304 of 2018

¶30

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove the case, examined herself as PW-1, Dr.Nagaraj B.N. was examined as PW-4, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P33. On behalf of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor got exhibited documents. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,00,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶31

The learned counsel for the claimant raised the following contentions:

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38414 MFA No. 2304 of 2018

¶33

(i) Firstly, at the time of the accident the claimant was working as a supervisor and earning Rs.12,500/- per month. Due to accidental injury she has been removed from the service. To that effect, she has produced Ex.P9 and the doctor has been examined, he has assessed the disability to the extent of 52% to particular limb but the Tribunal has not granted compensation for 'loss of future income'.

¶34

(ii) Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. She was treated as inpatient for a period of 15 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, she was not in a position to discharge her regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment and she has to suffer the disability throughout his life. Considering the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38414 MFA No. 2304 of 2018

¶36

'loss of income during laid up period’. Hence, sought to allow the appeal.

¶37

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company raised the following counter-

¶38

contentions:

¶39

(i) Firstly, the assertion of claimant that she was earning Rs.12,500/- per month and due to the accidental injury she was removed from service remains unsubstantiated. Even though she has produced the documents to prove the same, but the author of the said documents has not been examined and she has also not produced bank statement or termination letter. Therefore, it is very clear that she has continued in the service. The Tribunal rightly not awarded compensation for 'loss of future income'.

¶40

(ii) Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature and she was inpatient for only 15 days. Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the

¶41

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:38414 MFA No. 2304 of 2018

¶42

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are just and reasonable and it does not warrant interference.

¶43

(iii) Lastly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others – v- Venkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the compensation amount appears excessive. Hence, sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal and the original records.

¶45

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 23.02.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶46

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:38414 MFA No. 2304 of 2018

¶47

At the time of the accident the claimant was working as a supervisor and earning Rs.12,500/- per month. Even though the claimant claims that she has been removed from service, she has not proved the same and she has not examined the employer and not produced termination letter. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded compensation for 'loss of future income'.

¶48

Due to the accident, the claimant suffered grievous injuries, the doctor has assessed the disability of 52% to particular limb and 27.3% to whole body, she has suffered lot of pain during the treatment period and she has to suffer the disability throughout her life. Considering

¶49

the prolonged pain during treatment as well as the permanent disability certified by the doctor, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. The claimant is also entitled to compensation under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period for three months’, i.e., Rs.32,500/- (Rs.12,500*3).

¶50

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:38414 MFA No. 2304 of 2018

¶51

Due to the accident the claimant undergone surgery, and the doctor has deposed that she requires Rs.30,000/- for removal of implants. Considering the evidence of the doctor and injuries suffered by the claimant, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- to Rs.25,000/under the head 'future medical expenses'.

¶52

Considering the nature of injuries, the

¶53

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶54

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶55

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	90,000	90,000
Medical expenses	5,59,332	5,59,332
Food, nourishment, conveyance and	16,000	16,000

¶56

10 -

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:38414 MFA No. 2304 of 2018

¶58

attendant charges
Loss of income during	0	32,500
laid up period
Loss of amenities	20,000	50,000
Towards disablement	1,00,000	1,00,000
Future medical expenses	15,000	25,000
Total	8,00,332	8,72,832
Rounded off to	8,00,500

¶59

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶62

(ii) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶63

(iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.8,72,832/- as against Rs.8,00,500/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶64

(iv) Following the judgment of the Division Bench of

¶65

this Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’ (supra) , the

¶66

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:38414 MFA No. 2304 of 2018

¶67

enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

¶68

(v) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶69

this judgment. However, interest shall not be applicable to the compensation awarded under the head of 'future medical expenses'.

¶70

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶71

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

Smt Tejashwini D R @ Teja R v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Tejashwini D R @ Teja R v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Nagaiah Vs Mr Syed Nousad

The Manager L and T Gic Ltd. Vs Lakshman Puda Sutar

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Umesha

Sri. Papireddy Vs Mr. Venkata Reddy

Nagaratnamma Vs Kamakshi

The Reliance General Insurance Vs Sri.Hemanth Kumar P R