Partly allowed

Mr Shekara Y D v. Mr Somaraju Y S

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2024MFA/2725/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured in a tempo accident sought enhancement of motor accident compensation. The High Court retained income, multiplier and disability findings, enhanced amounts under pain and suffering, medical expenses, laid-up period, loss of amenities and future medical expenses, raising total compensation to Rs.17,15,056 with interest at 6%.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.17,15,056 with interest @6% p.a.; Tribunal award modified; enhanced amount payable by insurer within four weeks.

Mr Shekara Y D Vs Mr Somaraju Y S — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:2162 MFA No. 2725 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2725 OF 2022(MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. SHEKARA Y.D., S/O DYAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, YALADAHALLI VILLAGE, C. A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. PUTTA SWAMY C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MR. SOMARAJU Y.S., S/O SIDDEGOWDA, YALADAHALLI VILLAGE, C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT (EXPARTE), (OWNER OF GOODS TEMPO KA 11-B-5602).

¶14

CHOLA -MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD LEGAL OFFICE, NO.1/2, 9^TH FLOOR, 59TH 'C' CROSS, GOLDEN HEIGHTS, NEAR SUJATHA THEATRE, RAJAJINAGAR, 4TH BLOCK,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:2162 MFA No. 2725 of 2022

¶17

BANGALORE - 560 010, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER ).

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. H.S. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 06.04.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶20

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.08.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.6488/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, PRL. MACT, BENGALURU, 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 11.08.2021 passed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Prl.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.6488/2018. This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶24

2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

¶25

their status before the Tribunal.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:2162 MFA No. 2725 of 2022

¶28

Brief facts of the case are as under;

¶29

That on 30.09.2018 at about 06.30 a.m., the

¶30

claimant was traveling in a Goods Mini Tempo bearing No.KA.11/B.5602 from Mysuru towards Malavalli on Malavalli-Mysuru road, when he reached near Banasiri Choultry, the driver of the said tempo drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and took it towards the extreme left side of the road and dashed against the wall of the bridge. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Malavalli and then to Mandya, wherein, first aid treatment was given and thereafter, to Sparsh Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein, he has taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 12 days and underwent multiple surgeries and implants were inserted. The claimant spent huge amount towards medical treatment, food, nourishment and

¶31

conveyance expenses.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:2162 MFA No. 2725 of 2022

¶34

3.1 It is stated that the claimant was hale and

¶35

healthy and was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month by doing coolie work under respondent No.1 in his goods vehicle. 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.

¶36

3.2 On serve of notice, respondent No.1 remained absent and he was placed ex parte . Respondent No.2Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed statement objections denying the averments made in the claim petition including age, avocation, income and negligence attributed to the driver of the goods mini tempo. However, it admitted that the insurance policy which is subject to the terms and conditions therein. On the basis of pleadings, respondent-Insurance Company sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶37

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

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:2162 MFA No. 2725 of 2022

¶39

3.4 In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and Doctor as PW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P14. On the other hand, respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.R1 and R2.

¶40

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.15,07,900/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization and also held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant with interest and respondent No.2 being the insurer shall indemnify respondent No.1 and pay the compensation amount within two months.

¶41

3.6 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and award.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:2162 MFA No. 2725 of 2022

¶44

It is the vehement contention of the learned

¶45

counsel for appellant-claimant that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding meager compensation and it has not taken into consideration the avocation, age, income and magnitude of the injuries sustained by the claimant due to road traffic accident. He further contends that under other heads also, the tribunal has awarded meager compensation, so also the tribunal failed to award any compensation towards loss of amenities, future medical expenses and additional medical bills, which are part of the record before the tribunal. It is also contended that the tribunal has awarded meager income towards loss of earning during laid up period. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the appeal preferred by the claimant and seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶46

Per contra , learned counsel representing Insurance

¶47

Company contends that the tribunal has not committed any error in awarding compensation. He also contends that the claimant himself has admitted the income of

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:2162 MFA No. 2725 of 2022

¶50

Rs.12,000/-, which he was earning as on the date of occurrence of accident. Hence, the question of enhancing of income does not arise. He further contends that under other heads also, the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for interference. Therefore, on these grounds, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶51

Having heard learned counsel for both parties, it is not in dispute that accident occurred on 30.08.2018, while the claimant was traveling in goods mini tempo, the driver of the vehicle having lost control and dashed against the wall of the bridge and due to the accident, the claimant suffered grievous injuries. Accordingly, he has suffered disability to an extent of 30%. To establish the same, the claimant has produced the documents as Exs.P1 to P14, out of which, Exs.P1 to P3, P5, the Police records, which clearly disclose the laying of FIR and chargesheet against the driver of the offending vehicle and Exs.P4, P6 to P14 are the medical records. This clearly goes to show that the

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:2162 MFA No. 2725 of 2022

¶54

negligence has been rightly attributed against the driver of the offending vehicle and the same does not call for interference.

¶55

Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and

¶56

income of the claimant, the tribunal has assessed the income of Rs.12,000/- per month, on the basis of admission made by the claimant himself as on the date of accident, the same requires to be taken in the present case. The age of the claimant was 21 years at the time of the accident. The tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at ‘18’, which does not call for interference.

¶57

PW.2-Doctor has opined that the claimant sustained disability to the whole body at 31%. The tribunal has assessed the disability to an extent of 30%, the same is retained and does not call for interference.

¶58

The tribunal has awarded Rs.80,000/- towards

¶59

pain and suffering. However, this Court deems it

¶60

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:2162 MFA No. 2725 of 2022

¶62

appropriate to award Rs.1,20,000/- as against the amount awarded by the tribunal.

¶63

Towards medical expenses, the tribunal has awarded Rs.6,09,300/-, whereas the tribunal has failed to award additional medical bills placed on record by the claimant before the tribunal to an extent of Rs.60,156/- , the same requires to be awarded under the head of medical expenses.

¶64

The tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards

¶65

food, nourishment and attendant charges and Rs.2,000/towards transportation charges. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- under these heads.

¶66

Towards loss of future earnings due to disability, Rs.7,77,600/- is awarded by the tribunal, which does not

¶67

call for interference as the same is just and reasonable.

¶68

Towards loss of income during laid up period, the tribunal has awarded Rs.24,000/-. Considering the

¶69

10 -

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:2162 MFA No. 2725 of 2022

¶71

magnitude of injuries suffered and avocation, the claimant would require atleast four months period to recuperate and to get back to his normal day to day activities. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.48,000/- (Rs.12,000/- x 4) under the head loss of income during laid-up period.

¶72

The tribunal has not awarded any amount under

¶73

the head loss of amenities. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- under this head.

¶74

Towards future medical expenses, the tribunal has not awarded any amount. PW.2-Doctor has opined that a sum of Rs.90,000/- is required for future medical expenses. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- under this head.

¶75

In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.17,15,056/- as against Rs.15,07,900/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶76

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Pain and suffering	1,20,000-00

¶77

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:2162 MFA No. 2725 of 2022

¶78

Food and nourishment, attendant charges and transportation charges	25,000-00
Medical expenses	6,09,300-00
Loss of future earnings due to disability	7,77,600-00
Loss of amenities	25,000-00
Loss of income during laid up period and rest period	48,000-00
Future medical expenses	50,000-00
Additional medical bills	60,156-00
TOTAL	17,15,056-00

¶79

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶80

ORDER

¶81

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;

¶82

ii) The judgment and award dated 11.08.2021 passed in MVC.No.6488/2018 by Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Prl.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Benglauru, is modified;

¶83

iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.17,15,056/- as against Rs.15,07,900/awarded by the tribunal;

¶84

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

¶85

Corrected vide Chambers Order dated 14.08.2024

¶86

12 -

¶87

NC: 2024:KHC:2162 MFA No. 2725 of 2022

¶88

v) The enhanced compensation amount shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant, upon proper verification.

¶89

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

¶90

Sd/JUDGE

¶91

CPN CT:SNN

Mr Shekara Y D v. Mr Somaraju Y S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Shekara Y D v. Mr Somaraju Y S

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

Smt. Seema Vs Union of India

Mr.Harish H.N. @ Kumar Vs the Division Manager

Sri Srinivas T B S Vs Sri China Srinivasalu Reddy

Puneeth Kumar Vs Madhu

Sri Chandra Poojari Vs Avinash

Manoharan Vs Vinay B N