Allowed

Syed Usman v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2024MFA/2782/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Enhancement appeal in a motor accident claim. The court raised disability from 13% to 17% per the treated doctor's evidence, adopted the KSLSA notional income of Rs.12,500 for 2018, and enhanced amounts under pain and suffering, loss of future earnings, laid-up period and other heads to Rs.5,72,007 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.5,72,007/- with 6% p.a. interest; insurer directed to deposit within two months; entire amount released to claimant.

Syed Usman Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:49790 MFA No. 2782 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2782 OF 2020

¶7

(MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SYED USMAN, S/O SYED SAB, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.8/32, SRIRAMPURAM, MALAKALACHERUVA POST, THAMBALAPALLI TALUK, CHITTOOR DISTI, ANDRA PRADESH-517390 PRESENTLY R/AT NO.4, 3RD CROSS, GAYATHRI LAYOUT, K R PURAM, BANGALORE EAST, BANGALORE-560036

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. P SURESH., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.9/2, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

BHASKAR P, S/O PONNUSWAMY, MAJOR, R/AT NO.7, R C COMPLEX, 206-261, SG MUTT ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560018

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOVINDARAJAN R., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; VIDE ORDER DATD:02.03.2023, NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:49790 MFA No. 2782 of 2020

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO. 5075/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-14 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Being dissatisfied with the award of compensation of Rs.3,28,400/-, the claimant is in this appeal seeking enhancement.

¶23

The occurrence of the accident is not in dispute.

¶24

In assessing the above compensation, the Tribunal has assessed the whole body disability at 13% though the doctor, who was a treated doctor, had assessed the disability at 17% to the whole body. In my view, in light of the evidence of the doctor, who treated the claimant, it would be appropriate to determine the disability at 17% as against 13%.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49790 MFA No. 2782 of 2020

¶26

The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the claimant as Rs.8,500/-, since there was no evidence to that effect. As the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority has determined the notional income as Rs.12,500/- for the accident of the year 2018, it would be appropriate to determine the notional income of the claimant at Rs.12,500/-.

¶27

Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.3,31,500/- (Rs.12,500/- X 12 X ‘13’ X 17%) towards ‘loss of future earnings’.

¶28

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards ‘pain and sufferings’ and Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities’. Having regard to the disability suffered by claimant, it would be appropriate to enhance the said sum to Rs.75,000/- and Rs.50,000/- under the said heads.

¶29

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards ‘food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges’.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:49790 MFA No. 2782 of 2020

¶31

Since the claimant was hospitalised for two months, it would be appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- under the said head.

¶32

A sum of Rs.15,507/- has been awarded towards ‘medical expenses’. The same is just and proper and is, accordingly, affirmed.

¶33

The Tribunal has treated the laid-up period as three months. Since the claimant was hospitalised for two months, it would be appropriate to treat the laid-up period as four months and consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rs.12,500/- X 4 months) towards ‘loss of earnings during laid up period’.

¶34

Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and the following sums are awarded as

¶35

compensation:

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:49790 MFA No. 2782 of 2020

¶38

Sl. No.	Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
1.	Pain and sufferings	50,000/-	75,000/-
2.	Loss of future earnings	1,72,380/-	3,31,500/-
3.	Medical expenses	15,507/-	15,507/-
	Loss of income	25,500/-	50,000/-
4.	during the laid up period
5.	Conveyance, nourishment and nutritious food	25,000/-	50,000/-
6.	Loss of amenities in life	40,000/-	50,000/-
	Total	3,28,387/-	5,72,007/-

¶39

Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled for compensation of Rs.5,72,007/- as against Rs.3,28,387/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶40

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within two months

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:49790 MFA No. 2782 of 2020

¶42

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and thereafter, proceed to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, as held by the Tribunal.

¶43

The entire compensation amount shall be released in favour of claimant.

¶44

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part .

¶45

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶46

HNM

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

¶48

*Page No.6 retyped & replaced vide Court order dated 13.01.2025

Syed Usman v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Usman v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

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

Kalegowda Vs Javaraiah

M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited Vs Kiran Kumar

Shabana Vs M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Smt Khateeja Vs B Dayananda

Pushpa B L Vs Reliance GlC Ltd.

The Divisional Manager Vs Nanjesh