Partly allowed

Rathnakar v. Raghavendra Prasad

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2024MFA/3705/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant sought enhancement of compensation for below-knee amputation of right leg suffered in a 2016 accident, liability not disputed. The High Court raised whole body disability from 60% to 70%, took notional income at Rs.9,500 with 10% future prospects, enhanced heads of compensation and allowed the appeal in part.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs.15,36,025/- with interest at 6% p.a.; insurer directed to deposit within two months; disbursement per Tribunal award.

Rathnakar Vs Raghavendra Prasad — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:49200 MFA No. 3705 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3705 OF 2019(MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RATHNAKAR

¶8

S/O KRISHNA POOJARY, R/AT SALMARA, UPPOR VILLAGE, THENKABETTU POST, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SMT. SWATHI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

RAGHAVENDRA PRASAD

¶13

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

S/O B.K. KOTIAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O BHAGAWATHI KRIPA, KELANEJARU, KALYANPURA, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶15

THE IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO.LTD NEW DELHI, REP. BY ITS NEAREST DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DIVISIONAL MANAGER, 3RD FLOOR, LALBAGH TOWER, BALLALBAGH, M.G.ROAD,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:49200 MFA No. 3705 of 2019

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

MANGALORE

¶20

(BY SRI. S. KRISHNA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.235/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

The claimant, being dissatisfied with the

¶26

compensation of Rs.10,30,645/- awarded by the Tribunal, is in appeal.

¶27

The occurrence of the accident and the liability of the insurer to pay the compensation are not in dispute.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49200 MFA No. 3705 of 2019

¶29

It is also not in dispute that as a result of the accident, the claimant suffered an amputation of his right leg below his knee and the Tribunal has assessed the whole body disability at 60%.

¶30

Since the claimant was working as a coolie, in my view, it would be appropriate to treat the whole body disability at 70% as against 60% determined by the Tribunal.

¶31

The Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.9,000/- per month. Since, there is no proof of actual income and the accident is of the year 2016, the notional income would be Rs.9,500/- as determined by the Karnataka State legal Services Authority and 10% is to be added as 'future prospects'. Consequently, towards 'loss of future income', the claimant would be entitled to Rs.9,65,580/- (9,500 + 10% = 10,450/X 12 X 11 X 70%):

¶32

The Tribunal has awarded sum of Rs.2,53,445 /- towards medical expenses which, based on the documentary evidence, does not call for modification and is hence confirmed.

¶33

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/towards 'pain and suffering' and Rs.20,000/- towards 'loss of

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:49200 MFA No. 3705 of 2019

¶35

amenities'. In my view, since the claimant has suffered an amputation of his right leg below his knee, it is appropriate to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards 'pain and suffering' and Rs.1,00,000/- 'towards loss of amenities'.

¶36

The Tribunal has taken laid-up period as Six months. Since the income is so increased to Rs.9,500/-, loss of income during the laid-up period would also stand enhanced to Rs.57,000/- (9500 X 6).

¶37

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards permanent disability. Since the claimant is being paid for the loss of future income, this award of sum of Rs.50,000/- would be improper.

¶38

Since, the claimant was hospitalized for more than two months, it is appropriate to award a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards food, additional attendant and conveyance charges.

¶39

Consequently the award of the Tribunal is modified and the claimant would be entitled to the following compensation:

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:49200 MFA No. 3705 of 2019

¶41

Sl. No.	Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
1.	Pain and sufferings	Rs.50,000/-	Rs.1,00,000/-
2.	Loss of future income	Rs.5,83,200/-	Rs.9,65,580,/-
3.	Medical expenses	Rs.2,53,445/-	Rs.2,53,445/-
4.	Loss of income during the laid up period	54,000/-	Rs.57,000/-
5.	food, nourishment, attendant charges and Conveyance charges	Rs.15,000+Rs.5000 = Rs.20,000/-	Rs.60,000/-
6.	Loss of amenities	Rs.20,000/-	Rs.1,00,000/-
7.	Permanent disability	Rs.50,000/-	Rs.00/-
	Total	Rs.10,30,645/-	Rs.15,36,025/-

¶42

Thus, the claimant is held entitled to the total compensation of Rs.15,36,025/- as against Rs.10,30,645/-

¶43

along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:49200 MFA No. 3705 of 2019

¶46

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

¶47

amount of compensation awarded within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶48

The disbursement of the compensation amount shall be in terms of the award of the Tribunal.

¶49

15. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part .

¶50

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶51

LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Rathnakar v. Raghavendra Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rathnakar v. Raghavendra Prasad

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

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt. Chikkennamma

Divisional Controller Vs Rangaiaha

Sri Narasimhamurthy a T Vs Smt Prathiba H

Sri. Chandrashekar Vs Cholamanadalam Ms General Company Ltd.

M/S. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri. Lakshmana Gowda

Geetha Manekar Vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.