Partly allowed

Sri Neelakantaiah v. Mr Tajammul Pasha

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2024MFA/2589/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous first appeal regarding a motor vehicle accident claim, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 1,20,300 to Rs. 5,93,100. The Court assessed functional disability at 15% and notional income based on legal standards to calculate loss of future income, while retaining existing awards for treatment and miscellaneous expenses.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and award of the Tribunal are modified; the claimant is entitled to Rs. 5,93,100/- payable by the Insurance Company with interest at 6% p.a. within four weeks.

Sri Neelakantaiah Vs Mr Tajammul Pasha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:8691 MFA No. 2589 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2589 OF 2023 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. NEELAKANTAIAH, S/O DODDAIAH, NOW AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶9

RESIDENT OF: HESARAHALLI, SHETTIKERE HOBLI, C.N. HALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 226.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH B., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

MR. TAJAMMUL PASHA, S/O ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDENT OF: MUSTAFA STREET BELUR, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115.

¶16

MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2ND FLOOR, H.M.J.C RAOD, NO.36, J.C. ROAD, NEAR MINARVA CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 002, BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 27.11.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED)

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:8691 MFA No. 2589 of 2023

¶20

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.11.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.597/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 05.11.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Chikkanayakanahalli (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.597/2020. This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶24

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

¶25

their status before the tribunal.

¶26

Brief facts of the case are as under;

¶27

That on 07.05.2020 at about 12.45 p.m., the

¶28

claimant was proceeding on a TVS XL Super moped bearing registration No.KA-44-K7892 at the left side of the road, during which time, the driver of TATA intra V.20

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:8691 MFA No. 2589 of 2023

¶30

vehicle bearing registration No.KA-46-8416 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to Government General Hospital, C.N.Halli, wherein first aid treatment was given. Thereafter, to Hemavathi Hospital, Tiptur as per the advise of the doctor. The claimant spent Rs.3,00,000/towards medical expenses and other expenses.

¶31

3.1 It is stated that the claimant was hale and healthy prior to the occurrence of accident, aged about 50 years, he was doing bricks work and agricultural work and earning an income of Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to the occurrence of accident and injuries suffered, the claimant is unable to do his work normally as he was doing prior to the occurrence of accident. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

¶32

3.2 On service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel, only Respondent No.2-

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:8691 MFA No. 2589 of 2023

¶34

Insurance Company filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition including age, avocation, income and negligence attributed against the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶35

3.3 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration.

¶36

3.4 In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the case, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and the Doctor as PW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P16. On the other hand, respondents did not adduce their evidence either oral or documentary.

¶37

3.5 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,20,300/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation and also held respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:8691 MFA No. 2589 of 2023

¶39

claimant and directed to deposit the entire compensation

¶40

amount within two months from the date of the award.

¶41

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

¶42

It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for appellant-claimant that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding meager compensation, which calls for interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶43

Per contra , learned counsel for respondentInsurance Company contends that the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for interference. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the appeal.

¶44

Having heard the learned counsel for appellantclaimant and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, perused the impugned judgment and award, it

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:8691 MFA No. 2589 of 2023

¶46

is seen that the claimant has produced the documents at Exs.P1 to P16, out of which, Exs.P1 to P4, P6 are the Police records, which clearly depict the filing of FIR and laying of charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle and same has not been challenged or controverted. Therefore, the tribunal rightly attributed the negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle. Exs.P5, P7 to P16 are the medical records, which clearly depict the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.

¶47

Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and income, it is stated that age of the claimant was 50 years as on the date of occurrence of accident. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier would be ‘13’. The tribunal has not assessed the disability and has not assigned any reason for not awarding the compensation towards loss of future income due to disability.

¶48

I am in agreement with the learned counsel for appellant-claimant that this Court requires to appreciate the aspect of disability having not been considered by the

¶49

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:8691 MFA No. 2589 of 2023

¶50

tribunal. The Doctor has been examined as PW.2, who opined the disability to an extent of 53% to the right lower limb and 17.66% to the whole body. However, he has not opined the functional disability. Taking into consideration of the age and avocation of the claimant, this Court deems it appropriate to assess the functional disability at 15%.

¶51

The accident having occurred in the year 2020, there being no proof of income and the tribunal having not assessed the income, this Court will have to do a guess work by adopting the Legal Services Authority chart, wherein the notional income prescribes Rs.14,500/- for the accident year 2020. Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.14,500/-. Therefore, the loss of future income due to disability would be Rs.3,39,300/- (Rs.14,500/- x 12 x 13 x 15%).

¶52

The tribunal awarded Rs.70,300/towards treatment, hospitalisation, medicines and transportation, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶53

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:8691 MFA No. 2589 of 2023

¶54

The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards nourishment, food and miscellaneous expenditure, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶55

The tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain, suffering and trauma. I deem it appropriate to award an additional amount of Rs.30,000/-. In all, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.55,000/- under this head.

¶56

The tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities. I deem it appropriate to award an additional amount of Rs.30,000/-. In all, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- under this head.

¶57

The tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head loss of income during laid up period. In view of claimant being inpatient for 13 days and having suffered functional disability at 15%, at least three months period would be required for him to recuperate and to get back to his normal day to day activities. Therefore, the

¶58

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:8691 MFA No. 2589 of 2023

¶59

claimant would be entitled to Rs.43,500/- (Rs.14,500/- x

¶60

under this head.

¶61

Towards future medical expenses, PW.2 - Doctor has adduced in his evidence that Rs.50,000/- would be required for future medical expenses. This Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.30,000/- under this head.

¶62

In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,93,100/- as against Rs.1,20,300/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶63

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of future income due to disability	3,39,300-00
Treatment, hospitalization, medicines and transportation	70,300-00
Nourishment, food and miscellaneous expenditure	15,000-00
Pain, suffering and trauma	55,000-00
Loss of amenities	40,000-00
Loss of income during laid up period	43,500-00
Future medical expenses	30,000-00
TOTAL	5,93,100-00

¶64

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part ;

¶67

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:8691 MFA No. 2589 of 2023

¶68

ii) The judgment and award dated 05.11.2022 passed in MVC.No.597/2020 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Chikkanayakanahalli, is modified;

¶69

iii) The claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.5,93,100/- as against Rs.1,20,300/-;

¶70

iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with interest @ 6% p.a. by the respondent-Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶71

v) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant upon proper verification;

¶72

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

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

CPN CT: BHK

Sri Neelakantaiah v. Mr Tajammul Pasha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Neelakantaiah v. Mr Tajammul Pasha

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

Madhu a B Vs Ganghu a B

Y v Gundu Rao Vs a v Srinivasamurthy

Sri Chandrashekar Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

C.V Manjunatha Vs Kesavan

Kokilavani Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Smt Raziya Sultana Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.