Partly allowed

Sneha S v. Dr Amith Karthik Raju D

Karnataka HC19 Mar 2024MFA/25/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured in a road accident appealed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The court enhanced functional disability to 10%, added amounts under several heads, and enhanced total compensation to Rs.6,69,750/- with 6% interest payable by the insurer.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.6,69,750/- with 6% interest; insurer to deposit within four weeks.

Sneha S Vs Dr Amith Karthik Raju D — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:11730 MFA No. 25 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2023 (MV-I)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SNEHA S D/O SURESH BABU M D AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT HARITHA PRAKASHAM M.N. KOTE, GUBBI TALUK NOW R/AT S.S. PURAM 8^TH CORSS TUMAKURU TOWN 572 101

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

DR AMITH KARTHIK RAJU D S/O G.P DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO. 80, SHAMBUDDHA NILAYA 1^ST CROSS, 3^RD AMS LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU

¶12

NOW R/AT KADARINARASIMHASWAMY NILAYA IN FRONT OF ANIKETANA SCHOOL GNANASUNDARA LAYOUT SIRA GATE TUMAKURU 575 2106

¶13

THE LIBERTY GEN. INS. CO., LTD., BY ITS MANAGER 4-1-85/21 SHOP NO. 207,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:11730 MFA No. 25 of 2023

¶16

2^ND FLOOR, INLAND AVENUE M.G. ROAD, MANGALURU 575 5001

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAVI S.SAMPRATHI.,ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 14.08.2023)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.07.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.1142/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is preferred by the appellant - claimant challenging the judgment & award dated 30^th July 2022 passed in MVC No.1142/2019 on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru (for short

¶22

'the Tribunal ). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶23

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:11730 MFA No. 25 of 2023

¶26

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶27

On 24.4.2019 the claimant was proceeding on Suzuki

¶28

Access bearing registration No.KA-06-EH-0705 alongwith pillion rider from Red Cross building towards bus stand, during which time, the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA-50-Z-7679 drove the car in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed without following the traffic rules and all of a sudden turned the car to right side and dashed against the vehicle of the claimant. Due to the impact of the accident, claimant fell down and sustained fracture injuries to her right hand and injuries over the body. She was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Tumakuru for first aid treatment and thereafter shifted to M.C. Orthopedic Anthroscopy and Joint Replacement Centre, Tumakuru, where she was in-patient for a period of six days. She underwent operation and certain implants were inserted and expended more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards medicine and incidental expenses.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:11730 MFA No. 25 of 2023

¶31

3.1 It is also pleaded that prior to occurrence of the accident, the claimant was hale and healthy and working

¶32

as Assistant Auditor earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to the injuries suffered by her in the accident, the claimant is unable to do work as she was doing prior to the accident. Due to the permanent physical disability suffered and the expenses incurred, the claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

¶33

3.2 On service of notice, Respondent No.1 remained

¶34

absent and he was placed exparte and Respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition including age, avocation, income and negligence attributed against driver of the offending vehicle. However, admitted policy being issued to the offending car and also pleaded that driver of the offending car did not possess valid and effective Driving Licence. On these grounds sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:11730 MFA No. 25 of 2023

¶37

3.3 Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the relevant issues for consideration.

¶38

3.4 In order to substantiate the issues and establish the case, the claimant examined herself as PW.1 and doctor as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P70. The respondents did not adduce any evidence nor produced any documents on their behalf.

¶39

3.5 On the basis of the material evidence, both oral and documentary and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.5,28,110/- with interest at 6% per annum and directed the respondent No.2/insurer to deposit the compensation within two months.

¶40

3.6 Being aggrieved by the meager and inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶41

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel

¶42

for the appellant that the income and disability of the

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:11730 MFA No. 25 of 2023

¶45

appellant assessed by the Tribunal are on the lower side and the compensation awarded under different heads is not in accordance with the material on record. Therefore, he seeks to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation.

¶46

Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance company contends that the Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.16,000/- per month despite no documentary proof placed on record and therefore, the income of the claimant assessed by the Tribunal requires to be reduced to Rs.14,000/- per month in consonance with the notional income stipulated by the Legal Services Authority chart. It is also contention of learned counsel that that though the tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation on several heads and disability assessed is also on the higher side, insurer has not ventured to prefer an appeal. However, he sustains the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:11730 MFA No. 25 of 2023

¶49

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the claimant has produced the documents as per Exs.P1 to P70, out of which, Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 are the Police records, which clearly depict registration of the FIR and filing of charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle and same have not been challenged or controverted. Therefore, the tribunal rightly attributed the negligence against driver of the offending vehicle. Ex.P7 to Ex.P70 are the medical records, which clearly depict the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.

¶50

Now coming to the question of age, avocation and income of the claimant, the Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant to be Rs.16,000/- per month as no proof of income was placed before the Court. However, the claimant pleaded that she is a post-graduate and working as Assistant Auditor earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Therefore, learned counsel contends that the income of the claimant taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side and

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:11730 MFA No. 25 of 2023

¶53

same to be enhanced to Rs.20,000/- per month. Since the claimant is a post-graduate and working as Assistant Auditor, she cannot be equated with coolie or agriculturist and therefore, the Tribunal rightly assessed her income to be Rs.16,000/- per month and the same does not call for interference. The claimant was aged 28 years as on the date of accident and the appropriate multiplier would be '17', which is rightly applied by the tribunal and the same does not call for interference.

¶54

The doctor has been examined as PW.2. He

¶55

opined disability to an extent of 30% to right upper limb and 10% to whole body. The Tribunal taken the disability at 9%. I am in agreement with learned counsel for the appellant that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. There is no contra material

¶56

placed on record and cogent evidence adduced by the Insurance Company by producing second opinion or any other medical opinion to contradict the statement of the doctor/PW.2. On appreciation of evidence of the doctor

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:11730 MFA No. 25 of 2023

¶59

and considering the age, avocation and nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, I deem it appropriate to assess the functional disability of the claimant to be 10%.

¶60

In view of the above, loss of future income due to permanent disability would be Rs.3,26,400/- {16000 x 12 x 17 x 10%) as against Rs.2,93,760/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶61

The tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award additional amount of Rs.20,000/-. In all, Rs.60,000/- is awarded under this head.

¶62

The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,51,350/- towards medical expenses on the basis of the actual bills produced by the claimant, which does not call for interference.

¶63

The tribunal awarded Rs.18,000/- towards food

¶64

and attendant charges, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶65

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:11730 MFA No. 25 of 2023

¶66

The Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards disfigurement of right upper arm. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award additional amount of Rs.25,000/-. In all, Rs.50,000/- is awarded under this head.

¶67

The Tribunal has failed to award compensation towards loss of income during laid up period. Considering the magnitude of injuries suffered by the claimant, atleast four months is required to recuperate and get back to normal day to day activities. Therefore, Rs.64,000/- (Rs.16,000/- x 4) is awarded under this head.

¶68

In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,69,750/- as against Rs.5,28,110/- awarded by the Tribunal, as mentioned in the table below:

¶69

Sl. No.	Head of compensation	Amount of compensation awarded
1	Loss of future income due to disability	Rs.3,26,400-00
2	Pain and sufferings	Rs. 60,000-00

¶70

11 -

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:11730 MFA No. 25 of 2023

¶72

3	Food and attendant charges	Rs. 18,000-00
4	Towards disfigurement of right upper limb	Rs. 50,000-00
5	Loss of income during laid up period	Rs. 64,000-00
6	Medical expenses	Rs.1,51,350-00
	Total	Rs.6,69,750-00

¶73

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶74

O R D E R

¶75

i) The appeal is allowed in part ;

¶76

ii) The impugned Judgment & Award dated 30th July 2022 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.1142/2019, is modified.

¶77

iii) The appellant/claimant would be entitled to compensation of Rs.6,69,750/- (Rupees six lakhs sixty-nine thousand seven hundred and fifty only) as against Rs.5,28,110/- awarded by the Tribunal alongwith interest at 6% per annum.

¶78

iv) The enhanced compensation amount alongwith interest at 6% shall be deposited by the respondent no.2/insurer within a

¶79

12 -

¶80

NC: 2024:KHC:11730 MFA No. 25 of 2023

¶81

period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment;

¶82

v) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant as per the terms of the tribunal upon proper identification.

¶83

vi) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the Tribunal shall stand intact.

¶84

Sd/JUDGE

¶85

GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Sneha S v. Dr Amith Karthik Raju D

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sneha S v. Dr Amith Karthik Raju D

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

Chetan G S Vs Nagaraj

Harish Kumar Vs Radhakrishna K

Shri Praveen H Vs Shri S G Narasimha Murthy

Sri Palaksha K M Vs E T Keshavamurthy

Sri Hanumaiah Vs Mr Yogesh

Shiva M @ Shivu Vs New India Insurance Co. Ltd.