Allowed

Kumari Ashwini v. Sri Basavaraj T N

Karnataka HC20 Mar 2024MFA/3599/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal seeking enhanced compensation for a motor accident victim. The court modified the tribunal's award to Rs.82,125/-, including amounts for pain and suffering, medical expenses, and future care, and directed the insurance company to deposit the sum with interest.

What did the court decide?

Miscellaneous First Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced to Rs.82,125/- with 6% interest; respondent directed to deposit the amount within two months.

Kumari Ashwini Vs Sri Basavaraj T N — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:11523 MFA No. 3599 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3599 OF 2014(MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KUMARI ASHWINI D/O NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, R/AT CHAMUNIDPURA VILLAGE, BILAGUMBA POST, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK-562 159.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ.K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. BASAVARAJ.T.N. S/O NAGARAJA SETTY, AGED MAJOR, R/AT THIRUMALEGOWDANA DODDI, KOOTAGAL HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK-562 159.

¶14

THE MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SHUBHARAM COMPLEX M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-01.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(V/O DATED:08.12.2017 NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH; BY SRI. R.JAIPRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.01.2014

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:11523 MFA No. 3599 of 2014

¶20

PASSED IN MVC NO.225/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SR.CIVIL JUDGE & CJM., RAMANAGARA.

¶21

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Sri.Shantharaj.K., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.R.Jaiprakash., learned counsel for respondent No.2 have appeared in person.

¶24

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.

¶25

The brief facts are these:

¶26

On the 22^nd day of December 2009 at about 9:00 am., the claimant was walking on the left side of the road, near Manjunatha Conventional Hall, Jalamangala Road, Ramanagara to go to school. At that time, a rider of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-42-J-982 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant. As a result of which, she fell and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, she was taken to Government Hospital, Ramanagara for treatment. Contending that she is entitled for compensation, the claimant filed claim petition.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:11523 MFA No. 3599 of 2014

¶29

In response to the notice, respondents 1 and 2 appeared through their respective counsel. Respondent No.1 did not file any written statement. Respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the petition averments and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:08.01.2014 allowed the petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.50,875/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Five only) with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and directed the Insurance company to pay the compensation amount. It is this Judgment that is called into question in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respective parties have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the appeal papers with utmost care.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:11523 MFA No. 3599 of 2014

¶34

The point that requires consideration is whether the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation?

¶35

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The claimant's appeal is one for enhancement of compensation and modification of the Judgment. The grounds urged in the present appeal are mainly relating to the meager compensation awarded under different heads.

¶36

It is not in dispute that as on the date of accident, the claimant was a minor aged 14 years. The disability of the claimant was assessed at 10% to the particular limbs and 3.5% to the whole body. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

¶37

Court in MASTER MALLIKARJUN VS. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

¶38

AND ANOTHER reported in 2014 (14) SCC 396 , for disability upto 10%, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) should be awarded. Therefore, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) is awarded towards Pain and suffering, conveyance, nourishment and attendance charges, loss of amenities and enjoyment in life.

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11523 MFA No. 3599 of 2014

¶40

The compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal towards Medical expenses remains intact.

¶41

It is noticed that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,875/(Rupees Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Five only) towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment and rest. Since, the claimant was minor, the income of her parents must be taken into consideration. However, there is no proof of income of the parents. In the absence of any proof of income, the chart prepared by the Legal Service Authority must be taken into consideration. As per the chart, if the accident is occurred in the year 2009, the salary should be taken as Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month. Hence, the towards loss of income during laid up period for the parents is calculated as under:

¶42

Rs.5,000 X 3 months = Rs.15,000/-

¶43

It is noticed that the Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards future medical expenses. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) towards future medical expenses.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:11523 MFA No. 3599 of 2014

¶46

Accordingly, this Court re-determines the

¶47

compensation as under:-

¶48

1.	Pain and suffering, conveyance, nourishment and attendance charges, loss of amenities and enjoyment in life	1,00,000	Rs.1,00,000/-
2.	Medical Expenses	3,000	Rs.3,000/-
3.	Loss of income during laid up period for the parents	5,000 X 3	Rs.15,000/-
4.	Future medical expenses	15,000	Rs.15,000/-
		Total:	Rs.1,33,000/-
	(Less) Compensation	awarded by the Tribunal:	-Rs.50,875/-
	Enhanced compensat	ion awarded by this Court:	Rs.82,125/-

¶49

Hence, the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The Miscellaneous First appeal is allowed and the Judgment dated:08.01.2014 passed by the Court of Addl. MACT, Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara in M.V.C

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:11523 MFA No. 3599 of 2014

¶54

No.225/2010 is modified to the extent stated hereinabove.

¶55

The claimant is entitled for the enhanced

¶56

compensation of Rs.82,125/- (Rupees Eighty Two Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Five only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

¶57

The second respondent - Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with 6% interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this Judgment.

¶58

The Registry to draw the modified award

¶59

accordingly.

¶60

TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

Kumari Ashwini v. Sri Basavaraj T N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Ashwini v. Sri Basavaraj T N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Lino Tharakan

R Nanjappa Vs Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Boregowda

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kambaiah

Sri Ramaiah @ Matta Vs the National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Smt. Rekha Vs Sri. M. S. Venkatesh