Allowed

Sri Surendra H P v. Sri Chikkanna

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2024MFA/3620/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant appealed enhancement of motor accident compensation after grievous injuries in a bike-van collision. The High Court enhanced compensation under pain and sufferings and added loss of amenities, fixing total at Rs.2,47,920 with interest at 6% p.a., denying interest on the enhanced portion for delay.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.2,47,920/- with interest at 6% p.a.; Insurance Company directed to deposit within six weeks; no interest on enhanced amount for 427 days' delay.

Sri Surendra H P Vs Sri Chikkanna — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39466 MFA No. 3620 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3620 OF 2019 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI SURENDRA H P S/O PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/T HOSAHATTI VILLAGE KIBBANAHALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK NOW RESIDING AT PRAKRUTHI VASAVI NAGARA, SIRA GATE TUMKUR CITY

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. M S DEVARAJU.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI CHIKKANNA S/O ERANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT KOTTANAHALLI PLAYA VILLAGE MALLASANDRA POST, BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD BRANCH OFFICE, JAYADEVA COMPLEX B H ROAD, TUMKUR CITY

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT

¶16

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1432/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-X, TUMAKURU,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39466 MFA No. 3620 of 2019

¶18

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 H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant challenging by the judgment dated 24.11.2017 passed by MACT, Tumakuru in MVC No.1432/2014.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 01.12.2013 at about 3.00 p.m., the claimant was proceeding on his Bajaj Pulsar Motor Bike bearing Registration No.KA-03-BC-1829 towards Bengaluru side on N.H.206 road, near Chikkanaravanagala Gate, in front of Milk Dairy, Mallasandra, the driver of the TATA 407 Van bearing Registration No.KA-06-3056 came in rash and negligent manner from Tumakuru side without

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39466 MFA No. 3620 of 2019

¶25

giving signal abruptly turned towards right side and dashed against the motor bike. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶26

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act, seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent significant amount towards medical expenses, conveyance charges and other related costs. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶27

Upon service of notice, the respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No.1, despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.

¶28

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39466 MFA No. 3620 of 2019

¶30

the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,67,920/along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶31

The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions:

¶32

a) Firstly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. The claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2. He deposed that the claimant suffered 27% disability to right lower limb. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side.

¶33

With the above contention, the learned counsel sought to allow the appeal.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39466 MFA No. 3620 of 2019

¶35

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following countercontentions:

¶36

a) Firstly, even though the doctor stated in his evidence that the claimant suffered 27% disability to the right lower limb, the disability has not affected the claimant's ability to continue his job. In fact, he has continued in his service. Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, as well as his age and occupation, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not warrant interference.

¶37

b) Secondly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –

¶38

v- Venkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 8% p.a. on the compensation amount appears excessive.

¶39

With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39466 MFA No. 3620 of 2019

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶42

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶43

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 01.12.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶44

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained lacerated wound at the left side of the fact, fracture of both bones of right leg, lacerated wound over middle finger, lacerated wound on index finger of left hand and lacerated wound on little finger of left hand. He has examined the doctor as PW-2. He deposed that the claimant suffered 27% disability to the right lower limb. Considering the prolonged pain during treatment as well as the disability certified by the doctor, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.65,000/- to

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39466 MFA No. 3620 of 2019

¶46

Rs.80,000/- and the claimant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.65,000/- under the head of 'loss of amenities'.

¶47

Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation

¶48

awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶49

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

¶50

compensation:

¶51

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	65,000	80,000
Loss of income during hospitalization attendant charges, food and nutrition and conveyance	33,000	33,000
Loss of income during laid up period	69,920	69,920
Loss of amenities	0	65,000
Total	1,67,920	2,47,920

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:39466 MFA No. 3620 of 2019

¶53

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶56

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,47,920/-.

¶57

d) Following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’ (supra) , the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% p.a.

¶58

e) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶59

f) In view of the order dated 27.05.2024 passed by this Court, the claimant is not entitled to interest on the

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:39466 MFA No. 3620 of 2019

¶61

¶62

enhanced compensation for the delayed period of

¶63

427 days in filing the appeal.

¶64

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶65

¶66

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri Surendra H P v. Sri Chikkanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Surendra H P v. Sri Chikkanna

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

P Venkatesh Vs Vijayakumar

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Remy Joseph

The Manager Vs Sri Puttappa @ Puttanna

Smt Sudha Ramakrishnan Vs the Manager

Mr Rambaboo Vs Mr Ram Avtar Sharma

Sri Vinod Kumar J Vs Sri Sriram Vedamurthy