Allowed

Sureshachari S/O Krishnappa v. Nagaraja R S/O Rangappa

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2024MFA/3002/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pillion rider injured when a TATA vehicle dashed his motorcycle sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The High Court found the award on the lower side, reassessed amounts under various heads including pain and suffering and loss of income during lay-up, and enhanced compensation.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.50,153 with 6% p.a. interest from date of petition till deposit; insurer directed to deposit within eight weeks.

Sureshachari S/O Krishnappa Vs Nagaraja R S/O Rangappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:30549 MFA No. 3002 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA MFA NO. 3002 OF 2013 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SURESHACHARI S/O KRISHNAPPA AGE: 35 YEARS OCC: CARPENTER WORK R/O CARE OF RAJESH N L., HARIGE VIDHYANAGAR, SHIMOGA …APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SMT. MANJULA R KAMADOLLI, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

NAGARAJA R S/O RANGAPPA M/S. NAGALAKSHMI STONE SUPPLIERS OWNER OF THE TATA VEHICLE R/O OPP M G COMPLEX SANTHEMAIDANA HOSAMANE BHADRAVATHI TOWN 577 302

¶12

Digitally signed by PRAJWAL A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

DAVID S/O LATE NAGAIAH AGE: 24 YEARS DRIVER OF TATA VEHICLE R/O HOUSE NO 115, I CROSS SURAGITHIPU BHADRAVATHI TOWN 577 302

¶14

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., I FLOOR, S.S.COMPLEX OPP. TO CHURCH, B H ROAD SHIVAMOGA CITY 577 201 …RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. S.SUJATHA PANDIT, ADV. FOR SRI.K.SRIDHAR, ADV. FOR R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 7.8.2015 NOTICE TO R1 & R2 DISPENSED WITH)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:30549 MFA No. 3002 of 2013

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 9.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.268/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONA SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM, MACT-6, SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

In this appeal, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and award dated 09.11.2012 in M.V.C.No.268/2011 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & C.J.M. & M.A.C.T.-VI, Shivamogga ('the Tribunal' for short).

¶23

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall

¶24

be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶25

Brief facts of the case are, on 11.08.2010 at about 8.00 p.m., while the petitioner was riding motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-14/E-4174 as a pillion rider ridden by one Hemachari near RMC yard on Channagiri-Bhadravathi Road, a TATA vehicle bearing

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:30549 MFA No. 3002 of 2013

¶27

No.KA-14/A-3846 driven by the second respondent dashed against the motor cycle causing him injuries. After taking treatment at Government Hospital, Bhadravathi, Shivamogga and Mangalore, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation of Rs.8 lakhs. Claim was opposed by the Insurance Company. After taking the evidence and

¶28

hearing both parties, the Tribunal by impugned judgment awarded compensation of Rs.86,847/- with 6% interest p.a. Pleading inadequacy and seeking enhancement, the petitioner has filed this appeal on various grounds.

¶29

Heard the arguments of Smt.Manjula R.Kamadalli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Sujatha Pandit, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶30

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Carpenter, aged 33 years. In the accident, he has suffered multiple

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:30549 MFA No. 3002 of 2013

¶33

fractures and facial injuries with disfigurement, he could not chew food, was under hospitalization for 19 days. The disability certificate is produced to explain that the petitioner has suffered physical disability and no compensation is awarded towards disability; the compensation awarded under different heads is on the lower side and sought for enhancement.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the petitioner has suffered facial injuries, it will not affect his earning capacity. Only loss of amenities and discomfort that might have been suffered by the petitioner, which has been adequately compensated by the Tribunal. The compensation is proportionately awarded having regard to the gravity of injuries and it is not a case for enhancement and she supported the impugned judgment.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:30549 MFA No. 3002 of 2013

¶37

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on behalf of both sides and also perused the materials on record.

¶38

The material on record points out that there

¶39

was an accident involving the motor cycle, in which the petitioner was a pillion rider with TATA vehicle and he has sustained fracture injuries. Exs.P1 to P8 are the prosecution papers regarding actionable negligence on the part of the driver of TATA vehicle. Ex.P40, the disability certificate points out that the petitioner has suffered fracture of Zygoma, fracture of lateral wall of orbit, fracture of right maxillary wall and he underwent surgery. The discharge summary points out that the petitioner was under hospitalization for a period from 12.08.2010 to 1.09.2010 for a period of 19 days. The petitioner was treated in Government Hospital, Bhadravathi, McGann Hospital, Shivamogga and Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore; he also went for followup treatment and he has spent money towards

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:30549 MFA No. 3002 of 2013

¶41

travelling. He has also spent money towards attendant charges and nature of injuries certainly caused greater loss of discomfort and loss of amenities to him. Being a Carpenter, he has lost income during the period of laid up. Though the petitioner claims that he has suffered disability, no medical evidence is available in support of it. As noted above, in what way the above fractures are affecting carpentry work of the petitioner is not explained. Hence, the argument on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for loss of income due to disability is rightly not considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has assessed the compensation

¶42

under following heads:

¶43

Sl. No.	Particulars	Rs.
1	Transportation	10,000/-
2	Attendants charge	10,000/-
3	Extra nourishment	10,000/-
4	Medical & hospital expenses	1,847/-
5	loss of Amenities	20,000/-
6	Pain and sufferings inclusive of injuries	35,000/-
	Total	86,847/-

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:30549 MFA No. 3002 of 2013

¶45

As pointed above, the petitioner was aged 33

¶46

years, a carpenter, accident is of the year 2010, he was under hospitalization for 19 days, he underwent surgery with open reduction of the fracture. Hence, towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.50,000/- has to be compensated; towards loss of amenities and discomfort Rs.35,000/-; medical bills constitute Rs.1,847/-, thereby Rs.2,000/- is assessed towards medical expenses. Attendant charges is considered at Rs.8,000/-; transportation charges at Rs.10,000/-; food and nourishment at Rs.10,000/-; he was laid up for minimum of four months. Hence, loss of income during laid up period is Rs.22,000/- (Rs.5,500/- x 4), thereby the total compensation comes to Rs.1,37,000/- as hereunder:

¶47

Sl. No.	Particulars	Rs.
1	Transportation	10,000/-
2	Attendant charges	8,000/-
3	Extra nourishment	10,000/-
4	Medical & hospital expenses	2,000/-
5	loss of Amenities	35,000/-
6	Pain and sufferings inclusive of injuries	50,000/-
7	Loss of income during laid up	22,000/-

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:30549 MFA No. 3002 of 2013

¶50

period
Total	1,37,000/-
Less: compensation	86,847/-
awarded by the Tribunal
Enhanced compensation	50,153/-

¶51

This is the just compensation that the petitioner would

¶52

be entitled to, in the facts and circumstances of the

¶53

case.

¶54

As regards liability is concerned, the Insurance Company has already satisfied the award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, it has to pay enhanced compensation. Accordingly, the appeal merits consideration, in the result, the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i) Appeal is allowed-in-part ;

¶57

ii) Impugned judgment and award is modified;

¶58

iii) Petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.50,153/- with interest of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit;

¶59

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:30549 MFA No. 3002 of 2013

¶61

iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment.

¶62

v) Amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal along with records forthwith.

¶63

SD/(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA) JUDGE

¶64

KNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Sureshachari S/O Krishnappa v. Nagaraja R S/O Rangappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sureshachari S/O Krishnappa v. Nagaraja R S/O Rangappa

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

B Vinod Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri Mallappa Vs Suresh

Sayeda Najumu Saher Vs Sri. Manjappa M Mallapur

Sri Suryanarayanappa S/O Venkatappa Vs Sri Chalapathi S/O Late K M Chowdappa

Sri Maregowda S/O Puttaiah Vs Mohammad Hussain S/O Hayanth Sab

Sri. Anandachari Vs Sri. P. Sampathu