Allowed

Suhas N v. Rakesh H R

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2024MFA/2312/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A minor injured in a road accident with head injury and lasting neurological disability appealed the Tribunal award of Rs.3,05,000/-. Holding that tribunals may add amounts for rehabilitation beyond precedent figures, the High Court enhanced compensation by Rs.1,00,000 for future medical expenses and loss of amenities.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs.1,00,000 with 6% p.a. interest; insurer to deposit within eight weeks; withdrawal on proof of majority.

Suhas N Vs Rakesh H R — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37809 MFA No. 2312 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2312 OF 2021(MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SUHAS N., S/O NAGARAJU A., AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, MINOR, R/P BY NATURAL GUARDIANFATHER NAGARAJU A., S/O LATE AMAVASE., AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O NO. 116, SHARAVATHI BLOCKPOLICE QUARTERS, GAYATHRIPURAM, ACHARY COLONY, MYSURU CITY 570 002

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M.Y., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

RAKESH H.R., S/O RAMEGOWDA H.L., MAJOR, R/AT 262, HARAVU, PANDAVAPURA TQ, MANDYA DISTRICT 571 437

¶13

THE BRANCH MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM M S.,

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:37809 MFA No. 2312 of 2021

¶15

GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHOLAMANDALAM M.S., GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., D.NO. 271, ASHRAYA BUILDING, LAXMIVILAS ROAD, DEVARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU 570 001

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH, V/O DATED:22.11.2023)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.12.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO. 389/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Heard Sri. Sreenivasan M.Y, learned counsel for

¶23

appellant as well as Sri.Mallikarjuna Reddy N.A, learned

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37809 MFA No. 2312 of 2021

¶25

counsel who represents Sri.B.Pradeep, learned counsel on

¶26

record for respondent No.2.

¶27

A boy by name Suhas met with a road traffic accident in the year 2017 at the age of 14 years. He sustained grievous head injury and as per the material available on record, took extensive treatment. His father filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mysore which dealt with the matter as M.V.C. No.389/2018, on 7.12.2020 passed award holding that the compensation that the injured is entitled to is Rs.3,05,000/-.

¶28

Being aggrieved by the sum awarded, this appeal is filed.

¶29

Sri.Sreenivasan M.Y, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant sustained injury to the head and the said injury resulted in damage to the brain. Despite best treatment, he is still suffering with head ache and allied physical disabilities. His intellectual

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37809 MFA No. 2312 of 2021

¶31

levels have come down. Though PW-2 stated that the appellant requires treatment and rehabilitation, the tribunal solely basing on the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Master Mallikarjun -vs- Divisional Manager, Civil Appeal No.7139/13, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 396=AIR 2014 SC 736, awarded a global sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation apart from Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenditure. Learned counsel states that the appellant requires huge amount for future medical expenditure and that apart, due to the decreased intellectual ability he is suffering a lot and for that sufferance he should be compensated.

¶32

The submission that is made by Sri.Mallikarjuna Reddy N.A learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the otherhand is that the impugned order is based on sound reasons and therefore the award needs no interference.

¶33

The tribunal extracted the deposition of PW-2 at

¶34

para 21 of the impugned order which is as under:-

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37809 MFA No. 2312 of 2021

¶36

"Repeat computed tomogram brain done on 23.08.2017 was normal. Patient was asymptomatic, conscious, moving with support. He was discharged on 23.08.2017 with proper advise. Patient was treated with antiedema, antibiotic, antiepileptic and neuroprotective medications.

¶37

Patient has come for regular follow up. Last when patient had come for follow up on 26.12.2019, he complained of swaying of gait. On examination right hand tremor moderate with ataxia present. He was subjected for computed tomogram brain, Electroencephalogram and Neuropsychologist opinion. EEH was abnormal s/o epileptiform discharge from both centro-parietal regions. Neuropsychologist opined borderline level of intellectual disability and social quotient of 74. Ataxia detected on examination-40%.

¶38

Patient requires psycho education and neuropsychological rehabilation.

¶39

In my view this patient has suffered from grievous injury. He has 54% disability. He has 15% of chances of developing post traumatic epilepsy".

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37809 MFA No. 2312 of 2021

¶41

This Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW-2 regarding the disability of the appellant as narrated above. PW-2 has clearly stated that there are 15% chances of developing post traumatic epilepsy. He also deposed that the appellant requires psycho education and neuropsychological rehabilitation. Admittedly, the appellant is required to spend certain amount for the said purpose. The judgment that is relied upon i.e., the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Master Mallikarjun case nowhere states that the amount mentioned therein should not be exceeded. In appropriate

¶42

cases were the circumstances require granting of additional sum towards rehabilitation and treatment the tribunals can do so.

¶43

Here is a case where sufficient proof is produced that further treatment is required for the appellant. Also having considered the fact that due to the injury to the brain, the appellant would not be in a position to perform his duties and act as normal person, this Court considers

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:37809 MFA No. 2312 of 2021

¶45

desirable to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for future medical expenses as well as for loss of amenities in life.

¶46

Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following:-

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶49

ii. The compensation that is awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mysore through orders in M.V.C. No.389/2018 dated 07.12.2020 is enhanced by Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶50

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

¶51

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.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:37809 MFA No. 2312 of 2021

¶54

v. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount, subject to production of sufficient proof that he attained the age of majority.

¶55

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶56

VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Suhas N v. Rakesh H R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suhas N v. Rakesh H R

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

Puttanarasamma Vs Manju K

Dinesh M Vs Mr Jagadeesh

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

Sri C Adisheshaiah Chalasani Vs Smt Krishnamma

Sri Boregowda Vs Sri Srinivasa H B

Sri. M. Narayanappa Vs M. Manjunath