Partly allowed

Dhyamaiah v. Nagaraju N .

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2024MFA/3208/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous first appeal challenging a motor vehicle compensation award, the High Court of Karnataka enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,52,511/- by correcting the notional income and recalculating loss of future earnings, allowing the appeal in part and modifying the impugned award.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and award modified; total compensation enhanced to Rs.4,52,511/-, payable by Insurance Company with interest.

Dhyamaiah Vs Nagaraju N . — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10919 MFA No. 3208 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3208 OF 2023 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DHYAMAIAH S/O.LATE NIRVANAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT BORANAKANIVE VILLAGE HOYSALAKATTE POST HULIYAR HOBLI C.N.HALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT NOW R/AT 1^ST CROSS SIRAGATE TUMAKURU CITY-572 106

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI K.SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

NAGARAJU N. S/O.NATARAJU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT JANAKAL VILLAGE RAMALINGAPURA POST BUKKAPATNA HOBLI SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137

¶13

THE BRANCH MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. UNIT NO.4, 9^TH FLOOR (LEVEL-06), GOLDEN HEIGHTS 59^TH 'C' CROSS INDUSTRIAL SUBURB

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:10919 MFA No. 3208 of 2023

¶16

RAJAJINAGAR 4^TH 'M' BLOCK BENGALURU - 560 010

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED V/O.DATED 29.05.2023)

¶19

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.12.2022 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1229/2021 BY VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 31.12.2022 passed in MVC.No.1229/2021 by the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru (for short ‘the tribunal’). The appeal is preferred on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the tribunal.

¶23

Though this matter is listed for admission, with

¶24

consent of learned counsels for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:10919 MFA No. 3208 of 2023

¶27

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal.

¶28

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶29

On 26.10.2020, when the claimant was proceeding

¶30

on a Hero Honda Splendor plus motor bike bearing Chasis No.05A20F02714 as a pillion rider, on Huliyar-Sira NH234 road, near the land of JCB Shankarappa, a TATA Ace goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA.06.AB.0032 came from behind and dashed against the motor bike, resulting in accident and caused injuries to the claimant. He was immediately shifted to C.N.Halli Government Hospital and later on, he was shifted to Bowring Hospital, Bengaluru, and after that, shifted to Hemavathi Orthopaedic and Trauma Center, Tumkur. Due to the injuries sustained and due to permanent physical disability, he filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

¶31

4.1 On service of notice, respondent No.1 appeared

¶32

and not filed written statement and respondent No.2 filed

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:10919 MFA No. 3208 of 2023

¶35

the written statement denying the claim of the claimant

¶36

and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶37

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

¶38

4.3 In order to substantiate the issue and to establish the case, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and the Doctor as PW.2 and got marked documents from Exs.P1 to P15. On the contrary, respondent No.2 neither examined any witness nor got marked any document.

¶39

4.4 On the basis of material evidence produced by the parties, the tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.3,57,711/- with interest @ 6% p.a. and directed respondent No.2-Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount.

¶40

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

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10919 MFA No. 3208 of 2023

¶42

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for appellant-claimant that the tribunal awarded meager compensation, which calls for interference from the hands of this Court. Hence, he seeks to enhance the compensation.

¶43

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

¶44

Having heard learned counsel for appellant-

¶45

claimant and respondent-Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment and award, it seen that the Police records clearly depict filing of FIR and laying of chargesheet against the driver of the offending vehicle, which is not disputed or questioned. Hence, the negligence is rightly attributed as against the driver of the offending vehicle. The medical records clearly depict the magnitude

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:10919 MFA No. 3208 of 2023

¶48

of the injuries suffered and amount expended towards treatment by the claimant.

¶49

Now coming to the age, avocation, income and the disability, it is seen that the tribunal assessed the age of the claimant to be 65 years and adopted multiplier as '7', which does not call for interference and the same is retained. The tribunal has taken the income at Rs.9,000/per month. However, the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes Rs.14,500/- for the accident of the year 2020 and accordingly, the income is taken as Rs.14,500/-.

¶50

The Doctor has been examined as PW.2, who has opined the disability at 15% to the whole body and the same is accepted by the tribunal, which does not call for interference and the same is retained. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.1,82,700/- (Rs.14,500/x 12 x 7 x 15%) towards loss of future earning capacity as against Rs.1,13,400/- awarded by the tribunal.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:10919 MFA No. 3208 of 2023

¶53

The tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and agony, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶54

The tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶55

The tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards nursing, attendant, extra nourishment and conveyance, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶56

The tribunal awarded Rs.18,000/- towards loss of earning during treatment. In view of this Court enhancing the income from Rs.9,000/- to Rs.14,500/-, the claimant requires atleast three months period to recuperate and to get back to his normal day to day activities. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.43,500/- (Rs.14,500/- x

¶57

under this head.

¶58

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:10919 MFA No. 3208 of 2023

¶59

The tribunal awarded Rs.86,311/- towards

¶60

medical expenses, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶61

The tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- towards future

¶62

medical expenses, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶63

In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,52,511/- as

¶64

against Rs.3,57,711/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶65

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of future earning capacity	1,82,700-00
Pain and suffering	50,000-00
Loss of amenities	40,000-00
Nursing, attendant, extra	20,000-00
nourishment and conveyance
Loss of earning during treatment	43,500-00
Medical expenses	86,311-00
Future medical expenses	30,000-00
TOTAL	4,52,511-00

¶66

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;

¶69

ii) The judgment and award dated 31.12.2022 passed in MVC.No.1229/2021 by the Court of

¶70

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:10919 MFA No. 3208 of 2023

¶72

VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, is modified;

¶73

iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,52,511/- as against Rs.3,57,711/awarded by the tribunal;

¶74

iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with interest @ 6% p.a. by respondent No.2-Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶75

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

¶76

vi) The original records shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith;

¶77

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

¶78

Sd/JUDGE

¶79

Dhyamaiah v. Nagaraju N .

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhyamaiah v. Nagaraju N .

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak K.G. Vs Sugu G @ Sukumaran

Rathnamma @ Nagarathnamma @ Nagarathna Vs S Raghu

Mahesh D Vs Santosh

A.N.Nachappa Vs Pradeep Kumar H.K.

Gangadhara L Poojari Vs the Manager Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Smt Sudhamani K S @ Sudha Vs Darshan a R