Partly allowed

Dhanyakumar v. Chiranjeevi K

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2024MFA/2537/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant sought enhancement of motor accident compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The court affirmed the Tribunal's 18% whole-body disability assessment but raised notional income to Rs.12,500 per KSLSA rates for 2018 accidents, enhanced pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and laid-up period income, and awarded total compensation of Rs.10,05,219 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.10,05,219/- plus 6% p.a. interest from date of petition till realisation; insurer directed to deposit within two months.

Dhanyakumar Vs Chiranjeevi K — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:42567 MFA No. 2537 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2537 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DHANYAKUMAR

¶9

S/O KATAPPA, AGED 23 YERS, OCC BAKERY WORK AT DAVANAGERE, R/AT THORANAGATTE VILALGE, JAGALURU TALUK 577528, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

CHIRANJEEVI K S/O KOTRESH @ KOTRESHAPPA K H, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR TRAILER, BEARING NO.KA-16/TQ-5900 AND KA-16 T-2451, R/AT KALAGEE VILALGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT 577501.

¶15

M KOTRESH S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED 47 YEARS, OWNER OF THE TRACTOR TRAILER BEARING NO.KA-16/TQ-5900 AND KA-16/T-2451, R/AT NO.55, KALAGERE VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT 577501.

¶16

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD DIVISIOAL OFFICE, MEALGIRI PLAZA, OPP. DENTAL COLLEGE, MCC B BLOCK,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:42567 MFA No. 2537 of 2020

¶18

DAVANAGERE 577001.

¶19

MAHALINGAPPA P N S/O NINGAPPA P, AGED 32 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE AUTORIKSHAW BERING NO.KA-17/D-0381, PARMAMENT R/O THORANAGATTE VILLAGE, JAGALURU TALUK 577528, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶20

SUVARNAMMA, W/O KATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OWNER OF AUTORIKSWAW BEARING, NO.KA-17/D-0381, PERMANENT R/O THORANAGATTE VILLAGE, JAGALURUTALUK 577528, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶21

THE LEGAL MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM M S GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, DESAI CROSS, HUBLI 580024

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; VIDE ORDER DATED:31.01.2023, NOTICE TO R-1, R-2,

¶24

R-4 TO R-6 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.09.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.489/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ITINERARY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JAGALUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42567 MFA No. 2537 of 2020

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

Being dissatisfied with the award of compensation of Rs.7,85,139/-, the claimant is in appeal seeking enhancement.

¶31

The occurrence of the accident and the liability to pay compensation by the Insurer are not in dispute.

¶32

The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of the Doctor, who has stated that the claimant has suffered disability to the extent of 25% to the particular limb, has assessed the disability at 18% to the whole body. In my view, this assessment of disability by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with.

¶33

The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the claimant as Rs.9,000/-, since there was no evidence to that effect. In such circumstances, since the accident is of the year 2018, it would be appropriate to adopt the notional income determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the accident of the year 2018, which

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42567 MFA No. 2537 of 2020

¶35

would be Rs.12,500/-. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for Rs.4,86,000/- (Rs.12,500/- X 12 X 18 X 18%) towards loss of future earnings.

¶36

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/towards pain and sufferings, which, in my view, requires to be marginally enhanced to Rs.60,000/-.

¶37

The Tribunal has not awarded loss of amenities under

¶38

separate head, instead it has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities, conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges. Having regard to the disability suffered by the claimant at 18%, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.50,000/- towards conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges.

¶39

Since the notional income is now determined at Rs.12,500/-, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.50,000/(Rs.12,500 X 4 months) towards loss of income during laid up period.

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:42567 MFA No. 2537 of 2020

¶41

¶42

The amounts awarded towards medical expenses in a

¶43

sum of Rs.2,89,219/and towards future medical expenses in a sum of Rs.20,000/-, being based on documentary evidence, are affirmed.

¶44

Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified

¶45

and the following sums are awarded as compensation:

¶46

Sl. No.	Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
1.	Pain and sufferings	50,000/-	60,000/-
2.	Loss of future earnings	3,49,920/-	4,86,000/-
3.	Medical expenses	2,89,219/-	2,89,219/-
4.	Loss of income during the laid up period	36,000/-	50,000/-
5.	Conveyance, nourishment and nutritious food		50,000/-
6.	Loss of amenities	40,000/-	50,000/-

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:42567 MFA No. 2537 of 2020

¶49

	in life
7.	Future Medical	20,000/-	20,000/-
	expenses
	Total	7,85,139/-	10,05,219/-

¶50

Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled for compensation of Rs.10,05,219/- as against Rs.7,85,139/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶51

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶52

The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.

¶53

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶54

PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Dhanyakumar v. Chiranjeevi K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanyakumar v. Chiranjeevi K

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

Chaitra B Vs Venkatesha Bhovi

Smt Nagamma Vs the Branch Manager

Sri Rangaswamy Vs M/S Bharathi Axa Genl Ins Co.Ltd.

Sri K S Ramesh Vs the Branch Manager

Smt. Y H Chaithra Vs Sri Rajeev H. Raj@ Bharath

Abdul Khuddus Vs Divisional Controller Ksrtc