Allowed

Dundappa S/O. Mallappa Galagali v. Chidambar S/O. Martandabhat Purohit

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2024MFA/25797/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, enhancing medical compensation from Rs. 15,220 to Rs. 31,780 due to inadequate pain and suffering compensation for a clavicle fracture sustained in a vehicle-bicycle accident.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 31,780/- to be paid by Respondent No. 2 within eight weeks.

Dundappa S/O. Mallappa Galagali Vs Chidambar S/O… — Medical Negligence | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8010 MFA No. 25797 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T. G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25797 OF 2011(MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DUNDAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA GALAGALI AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: SKILLED LABOUR, R/O: TULASIGERI, TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶10

…APPELLANT (BY SMT. CHITRA GOUDALKAR FOR S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

CHIDAMBAR S/O. MARTANDABHAT PUROHIT AGEL 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKASHELLIKERI, TQ: BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶13

Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

HANAMANT S/O. BHARMAPPA BISALE AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKASHELLIKERI, TQ: BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA S. SAJJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)

¶16

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988,PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT FROM RS. 15,220=00 TO RS.1,31,000=00 BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE MACT NO II BAGALKOT IN MVC NO.319/2009 DATED 02-082011, ALONG WITH THE INTEREST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8010 MFA No. 25797 of 2011

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

In this appeal the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 02.08.2011, passed in M.V.C.No.319/2009 by Member, M.A.C.T.No.II, Bagalkot (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal' for short).

¶22

The parties will be referred with respect to their

¶23

status before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶24

The brief facts of the case are, 31.07.2018, while the petitioner was riding his bicycle near the land of Manohar Kerakalamatti, on Bagalkot-Belgaum State Highway at 6:30 a.m., a Hero Honda motorcycle came from behind, hit and injured the petitioner. Due to the injury, the petitioner suffered fracture of clavicle, admitted and treated at the District Hospital, Bagalkote and KIMS Hospital, Navanagar. Claiming compensation of Rs.1,31,000/- the petitioner has approached the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 has resisted the claim by denying the

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8010 MFA No. 25797 of 2011

¶26

allegations. The Tribunal after holding the enquiry and hearing both sides, assessed the compensation of Rs.15,220/- with 6% interest per annum. Seeking enhancement, the petitioner has filed this appeal on various grounds.

¶27

Heard the arguments of Sri.Chitra Goundalkar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Siddappa S. Sajjan, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the records.

¶28

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner has suffered fracture of clavicle and aged 45 years. The medical evidence is placed to show that the disability suffered is 10% to whole body, whereas the Tribunal has taken 2% disability and awarded lesser compensation and sought for enhancement.

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has contended that, after the accident the petitioner was properly treated and he was attending his regular job.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8010 MFA No. 25797 of 2011

¶31

There was no scope for permanent disability affecting his earning capacity. The Tribunal has correctly assessed the income and there is no scope for enhancement of compensation. He further submitted that the disability component has to be disallowed and compensation has to be reduced and supported the impugned judgment.

¶32

I gave my anxious consideration to the

¶33

arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record.

¶34

The evidence on record point out that there was an accident between a cycle and motorcycle involving the petitioner and second respondent. The medical records show that the petitioner has suffered fracture of left clavicle. He was under hospitalization for two days. For the reason of negligence and the part of the rider of the motorcycle, he has been charge sheeted by the police in C.C.No.2688/2008. Hence, the material on record is

¶35

suffice to hold that due to the negligence on the part of respondent No.2 in riding the motorcycle, the accident

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8010 MFA No. 25797 of 2011

¶37

occurred resulting in fracture of left clavicle of the petitioner.

¶38

The argument of learned counsel for the

¶39

petitioner that there is disability of 10% to the whole body, is unacceptable for the reason that the clavicle bone is an ornamental bone and do not cause any permanent

¶40

disability to the body which is affecting the earning capacity of the petitioner.

¶41

The Tribunal has awarded compensation as

¶42

under:

¶43

		Amount (Rs.)
1.	Pain and sufferings	1,000.00
2.	Medical Expenses	2,960.00
3.	Loss of future income	10,080.00
4.	Loss of amenities, nutrition, diet and attendant charges	400.00
5.	Bicycle repair charge	780.00
	Total	15,220.00

¶44

It is the case of fracture and the accident is of the year 2008. The assessment of compensation in a case

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8010 MFA No. 25797 of 2011

¶46

of this nature must be just compensation having regard to the nature of injuries. As noticed from the impugned judgment, unfortunately only Rs.1,000/- is assessed towards pain and suffering, which in no way compensate the petitioner. And the petitioner has to be awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. The medical expenses of Rs.2,960/- is supported by the petitioner. Hence the medical expenses of Rs.3,000/- is assessed. The petitioner was treated in the hospital for two days. He was confined to a minimum of two months. He has spent money towards incidental expenses, such as attendant, travelling, food and nourishment. A sum of Rs.3,000/- is assessed towards incidental expenses and for laid up period of two months, the petitioner has to be compensated at Rs.10,000/-. Loss of amenities and discomfort has to be awarded at not less than Rs.5,000/-. The bicycle was repaired at the cost of Rs.780/-. Hence the bicycle repair charges of Rs.780/- is assessed.

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8010 MFA No. 25797 of 2011

¶48

Hence, the petitioner is entitled to a total

¶49

compensation as under:

¶50

		Amount (Rs.)
1.	Pain and sufferings	10,000.00
2.	Medical Expenses	3,000.00
3.	Incidental, nutrition and attendant charges	3,000.00
3.	Loss of income during laid up period for two months	10,000.00
4.	Loss of amenities and discomfort	5,000.00
5.	Bicycle repair charge	780.00
	Total	31,780.00

¶51

Accordingly, the petitioner would be entitled for a compensation of Rs.31,780/- as against Rs.15,220/- assessed by the Tribunal and thereby enhancement of Rs.16,560/- . It is just compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the appeal merits consideration. In the result, the following;

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i. The appeal filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed.

¶54

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8010 MFA No. 25797 of 2011

¶55

ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified.

¶56

iii. The petitioner would be entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.16,560/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, excluding interest on future medical expenses.

¶57

iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to satisfy the award within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶58

Registry is directed to transmit the records and also

¶59

the amount, if any, deposited, to the Tribunal.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

gab ct-cmu List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Dundappa S/O. Mallappa Galagali v. Chidambar S/O. Martandabhat Purohit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dundappa S/O. Mallappa Galagali v. Chidambar S/O. Martandabhat Purohit

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

The Divisional Manager, Vs Hanumavva W/O Lakshmappa Kadimani

Siddvva W/O Kallolleppa Neelar, Vs the Divisional Controller N.W.K.R.T.C

Prema S/O. Srinivas Naik Vs M Shivanna S/O. Ninjappa

Irayya S/O Shivalingayya Mathpati Vs Dundappa S/O Basappa Kamatagi

Sharanappa S/O Yamanappa @ Mudukappa Madiwalar, Vs Sri. Veerappa Channabasappa Bavikatti