Partly allowed

Manjunath So Siddalingappa Hallikeri v. Prabhappa S/O Shrishailappa Kori

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2024MFA/23083/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured in a 2010 road traffic accident appealed the tribunal's ₹3,46,300 award seeking enhancement. The High Court reassessed quantum, assessed 8% whole-body disability and notional income of ₹5,500, and allowed the appeal in part, granting an additional ₹1,92,200 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.1,92,200 (stated as Rs.1,92,000 in order) with 6% interest from date of petition, to be deposited by respondent No.2 insurer within six weeks.

Manjunath So Siddalingappa Hallikeri Vs Prabhappa… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16231 MFA No. 23083 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23083 OF 2012 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI MANJUNATH S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA HALLIKERI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL, R/O: YARAGUPPI, TQ: KUNDAGOL, NOW AT VIKRAM BUILDING, 1^ST CROSS, JAYANAGAR, DHARWAD.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI S. M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE FOR SRI A.M.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT APPEARED THROUGH VC)

¶12

AND:

¶13

PRABHAPPA S/O. SHRISHAILAPPA KORI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O: MULGUND, TQ AND DIST: GADAG.

¶14

Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., 1^ST FLOOR, ANKOLA BUILDING, OPPOSITE TO DISTRICT COURT, P. B. ROAD, DHARWAD.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI N.R.KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE IN RESPECT OF R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.03.2012 MADE IN M.V.C.NO.229/2011 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK – III AT DHARWAD AND CONSEQUENTLY ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16231 MFA No. 23083 of 2012

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

¶25

The present appeal is filed by the claimant

¶26

challenging the judgment and award dated 09.03.2012 passed in MVC No.229/2011 by the Court of the Fast Track-III, Dharwad¹ seeking for enhancement of compensation.

¶27

The relevant facts necessary for consideration

¶28

of the present appeal are that the claimant filed MVC No.229/2011 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident which occurred on 13.11.2010. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 09.03.2012 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of ₹3,46,300/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its

¶29

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16231 MFA No. 23083 of 2012

¶31

realization. Seeking enhancement of the compensation, the present appeal is filed by the claimant.

¶32

Heard the submissions of learned counsel Sri S. M. Kalawad for the appellant/claimant and learned counsel Sri. N.R. Kuppelur for respondent No.2/Insurer. Perused the records including records of the Tribunal.

¶33

The findings of the Tribunal on negligence and liability has not been challenged. Hence, the only aspect that is considered in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

¶34

The Injury Certificate (Ex.P.4), Discharge Card (Exs.P.7 to P.11) and as well as the Disability Certificate (Ex.P.12) and also the testimony of the Doctor/PW.2 discloses that the claimant sustained fracture of tibia and fibula of left leg and comminuted fracture of tibia and fibula of the right leg. He was treated as an impatient for a total period of 57 days and he has undergone surgery on three different occasions. The Photographs have also been

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16231 MFA No. 23083 of 2012

¶36

produced at Ex.P.20. The Doctor/PW.2 has also deposed that the implants are required to be removed and future medical expenses will also is required to be incurred.

¶37

The claimant has averred that he was carrying on business by running a medical shop and he has produced the statutory license/permission as Exs.P.13 to P.17.

¶38

The Tribunal has not assessed the disability and not awarded any amount towards loss of future earning capacity as well as loss of income by recording findings that the claimant has not produced any document to show his income and has further not produced any document to show that the license issued for running of medical shop has been terminated.

¶39

Although the claimant/PW.1 has deposed that after the accident in question, he has become unemployed and lost his business income and suffered from financial hardship, there are no documentary materials produced to

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16231 MFA No. 23083 of 2012

¶41

demonstrate the same. However, having regard to the nature of injury sustained and the period of treatment, the findings of the Tribunal that no loss of income and future loss of running capacity is required to be awarded is erroneous and liable to be interfered with.

¶42

It is forthcoming that the Doctor/PW.2 has deposed that the claimant has sustained disability of 25% to the left leg and 20% to the right leg. However, the Doctor has also deposed fractures have been united on the right leg and there has been delayed union in the left leg. The Doctor has also not assessed disability to the whole body. Keeping in mind the nature of injuries and the extent of disability as deposed by PW.2/Doctor, it is just and proper that the disability to the whole body be assessed as 8%.

¶43

Although the claimant has deposed that he is carrying on business by running medical shop and has produced Exs.P.13 to P.17, in that regard, no documents have been produced to demonstrate the income that he

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16231 MFA No. 23083 of 2012

¶45

has earned. It is relevant to note that in the crossexamination PW.1 has stated that he has continued the business. Since the claimant has not produced any income, the income as per the chart prepared for settlement of cases in the Lok-Adalath by the High Court, Legal Service Authority will have to be recorded and having regard to the date of the accident, the income of the claimant is assessed at ₹5,500/-.

¶46

Having regard to the age of the claimant as on date of the accident the appropriate multiplies is assessed as 15.

¶47

Although learned counsel for the Insurer vehemently contends that since he has continued the business after the accident and no future loss of earning capacity is required to be awarded, keeping in mind the nature of injuries and the fact that having regard to the resultant in disability, he will not able to carryon the business in the same manner as he was doing prior to the date of the accident, it is just and proper that the loss of

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16231 MFA No. 23083 of 2012

¶50

earning capacity be awarded in the terms of the extent of disability assessed.

¶51

13. In view of the aforementioned, the quantum of

¶52

compensation assessed by the Tribunal is reassessed as follows:

¶53

a) The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of ₹50,000/- towards pain and suffering. Keeping in mind the nature of injuries sustained and period of treatment, it is just and proper that a further sum of ₹20,000/- be awarded and the compensation towards pain and

¶54

suffering be reassessed at ₹70,000/- .

¶55

b) The Tribunal has awarded a sum of ₹2,26,300/- towards medical expenses which is as per actual medical bills which is just and proper.

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16231 MFA No. 23083 of 2012

¶57

c) The Tribunal has awarded a sum of ₹40,000/towards loss of amenities.

¶58

Having regard to the nature of treatment that the claimant is undergone, it is just and proper that a further a sum of ₹20,000/- be awarded for the same and the said compensation is reassessed as

¶59

₹60,000/- .

¶60

d) The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards transportation and nutrition charges. The claimant deposed he has engaged a vehicle for the purpose of taking further treatment. Having regard to the period during which he has undergone the treatment as well as the follow-up treatment that he has taken, it is just and proper that further a sum of ₹15,000/- be awarded for the same and the compensation is reassessed at ₹45,000/- .

¶61

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16231 MFA No. 23083 of 2012

¶62

e) The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of income. It is forthcoming from Exs.P.7 to P.11 that the claimant has taken treatment up to 09.07.2011. Having regard to the same, the period of treatment is taken as 6 months and loss of income is calculated for the said period is assessed as (₹5,500 x 6) = ₹33,000/- .

¶63

f) Although the Doctor has deposed that a further sum of ₹32,000/- to ₹35,000/- is required for future medical expenses for removal of implants, the claimant has not produced any material to indicate that he has incurred future medical expenses. However, having regard to the medical evidence that implants have been inserted, it is just and proper that a sum of ₹25,000/- be awarded towards future medical expenses.

¶64

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16231 MFA No. 23083 of 2012

¶65

g) The loss of earning capacity is assessed at (₹5,500 x 8/100 x 12 x 15) ₹79,200/- .

¶66

Thus compensation is re-assessed as follows:

¶67

Sl. No.	Particulars	Before the Tribunal	Before this Court
1.	Pain and Suffering	₹50,000	₹70,000
2.	Loss towards Medical Expenses	₹2,26,300	₹2,26,300
3.	Loss of amenities	₹40,000	₹60,000
4.	Transportation and nutrition charges	₹30,000	₹45,000
5.	Loss of income during laid up period	-	₹33,000
6.	Future medical expenses	-	₹25,000
7.	Loss of earning capacity	-	₹79,200
	Total	₹3,46,300	₹5,38,500

¶68

Thereby, the appellant/claimant is entitled for a total sum of Rs.5,38,500/-. After deducting a sum of Rs.3,46,300/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to a further sum of Rs.1,92,200/(Rs.5,38,500/- – Rs.3,46,300/-), along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

¶69

11 -

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16231 MFA No. 23083 of 2012

¶71

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the

¶72

following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 09.03.2012, passed in M.V.C. No.229/2011, by the Court of Fast TrackIII, Dharwad is hereby modified only to the extent of holding that the appellant is entitled for an additional sum of Rs.1,92,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The judgment and award of the Tribunal in all other respects remained unaltered.

¶75

iii) The respondent No.2 – Insurance Company shall deposit the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶76

iv) Modified award to be drawn accordingly.

¶77

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶78

SSP CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Manjunath So Siddalingappa Hallikeri v. Prabhappa S/O Shrishailappa Kori

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunath So Siddalingappa Hallikeri v. Prabhappa S/O Shrishailappa Kori

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhananjaya Shivaputrappa Kurubar Vs Smt. Meenakshi Kom Shivaputrappa Kurubar

Smt. Bailavva Vs Shivappa

Srinath S/O Chandrashekhar Tonashyal Vs Yamanurappa S/O Nagappa Yalawar

Mallappa S/O. Ningappa Karikatti Vs Prashant S/O. Gangappa Ninggudagi

The Executive Engineer Vs the Special Land Acqusition Officer

The Executive Engineer, Vs the Special Land Acqusition Officer