Partly allowed

Smt Raziya Sultana v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2024MFA/3719/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured as a pillion rider when a car dashed her two-wheeler appealed against the tribunal's award of Rs.1,82,000. The court enhanced the disability from 5% to 15%, increased amounts under several heads, and awarded total compensation of Rs.5,46,128 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.5,46,128 with interest @6% p.a., payable by respondent-Insurance Company within four weeks; tribunal's award modified.

Smt Raziya Sultana Vs United India Insurance Company… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:8827 MFA No. 3719 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3719 OF 2022 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.RAZIYA SULTANA W/O.HABIB REHAMAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS NO.688, 10^TH CROSS PRAGATHIPURA BANASHANKARI BENGALURU-560 070

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI GIRIMALLAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE T.P.HUB KRISHI BHAVAN 6^TH FLOOR, HUDSON CIRCLE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 BY ITS MANAGER

¶15

MR.R.RAVINDRAN S/O.MR.RAJADURAI MAJOR NO 1/394, MANTHAIVELI PULITANKANNU KARAI-632 401 VELLORE, TAMIL NADU

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI B.A.RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O/DTD.23.01.2024)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:8827 MFA No. 3719 of 2022

¶20

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.02.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.2987/2020 BY XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM AND MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant

¶24

challenging the judgment and award dated 22.02.2022 passed in MVC.No.2987/2020 by the Court of XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Member-MACT, Bengaluru (for short ‘the tribunal’). The appeal is preferred

¶25

on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the tribunal.

¶26

Though the matter is listed for admission, with

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:8827 MFA No. 3719 of 2022

¶31

Brief facts of the case is as under:

¶32

On 15.08.2020 at about 9.20 a.m., when the

¶33

claimant was proceeding on a Honda Activa bearing registration No.KA-53-EA-6801 as a pillion rider, at Police corner, near Halasuru Gate Police Station, the driver of the car bearing registration No.TN-73-P-1182 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor vehicle of the claimant. Due to the impact, she was thrown out from the bike and sustained severe injuries to her right hand and other parts of the body. She was immediately shifted to St.Marthas Hospital, wherein she had taken first-aid treatment and thereafter to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, wherein she was treated as inpatient, underwent operation, internal fixation was done and due to the injuries sustained, she met with medical expenses. Hence, she filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

¶34

4.1 On service of notice, respondent No.2 remained

¶35

absent and was placed ex parte and respondent No.1 appeared and filed written statement denying the claim

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:8827 MFA No. 3719 of 2022

¶38

made by the claimant including age, avocation, income, rashness and negligence attributed against the driver of the car. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶39

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

¶40

4.3 In order to substantiate the issue and to

¶41

establish the case, the claimant got examined herself as PW.1 and the Doctor as PW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P16. On the other hand, respondent No.1 neither examined any witness nor got marked any document.

¶42

4.4 On the basis of material evidence produced by the parties, the tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.1,82,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a.

¶43

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

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:8827 MFA No. 3719 of 2022

¶46

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for appellant-claimant that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding meager compensation, which calls for interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, he seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded by the tribunal.

¶47

Per contra , learned counsel for respondentInsurance Company vehemently contends that there is no error or illegality committed by the tribunal, as the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation based on the material evidence placed on record. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal.

¶48

Having heard learned counsel for appellantclaimant and respondent-Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment and award, Exs.P1 to P6, the Police records, which clearly depict filing of FIR and laying of chargesheet against the driver of the offending car, which is not disputed or challenged. Exs.P7 to P16 are the medical records, medical prescriptions and bills for having

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:8827 MFA No. 3719 of 2022

¶51

incurred financial expenditure towards treatment to show the injuries sustained in the accident. This clearly goes to

¶52

show that the negligence has been rightly attributed against the rider of the offending vehicle.

¶53

Now coming to the age, avocation, income and the

¶54

disability, the tribunal taken the income of Rs.14,500/- per month and the age of the claimant being 49 years as on the date of occurrence of accident, the appropriate multiplier applied by the tribunal is '13', which do not call for interference and the same are retained. PW.2-Doctor has assessed the disability of 49% to the upper limb and 16.33% to the whole body. However, the tribunal disagreeing with the opinion expressed by PW.2-Doctor, taken the disability at 5%, which is incorrect. Hence, I am in agreement with learned counsel for appellant-claimant that the disability assessed by the tribunal is on the lower side and the same requires to be enhanced, considering

¶55

the age and avocation of the claimant and injuries sustained by her. PW.2-Doctor having assessed the

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:8827 MFA No. 3719 of 2022

¶58

disability at 49% towards upper limb and the claimant having sustained range of movement of right shoulder and elbow restricted, healed scar mark over right shoulder and humerus noted, deltoid wasting, pain on movement of shoulder and elbow, difficult in lifting weight, coordinated activities, right humerus united with implants in situ, this Court deems it appropriate to assess disability at 15% to the whole body. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.3,39,300/- (Rs.14,500/- x 12 x 13 x 15%) towards loss of future income due to disability as against Rs.1,13,100/- awarded by the tribunal.

¶59

The tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award additional amount of Rs.40,000/-. In all, Rs.50,000/- is awarded under this head.

¶60

The tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities. However, this Court deems it appropriate to

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:8827 MFA No. 3719 of 2022

¶63

award additional amount of Rs.25,000/-. In all,

¶64

Rs.35,000/- is awarded under this head.

¶65

The tribunal awarded Rs.28,828/- towards medical expenses, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶66

The tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. However, in view of the fact that the claimant was inpatient for 24 days, an additional amount of Rs.20,000/-

¶67

is awarded under this head. In all, Rs.25,000/- is awarded under this head.

¶68

The tribunal awarded Rs.14,500/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment. However, in view of the fact that the claimant was inpatient for 24 days, she would require atleast four months period to recuperate and to get back to her normal day to day activities. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.58,000/- (Rs.15,000/- x 3) under this head.

¶69

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:8827 MFA No. 3719 of 2022

¶70

The tribunal has not awarded any amount

¶71

towards future medical expenses. However, PW.2-Doctor has opined that the claimant would require Rs.30,000/towards future medical expenses. In view of the claimant coming under BPL benefit and avail the scheme for reduction of payment, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.10,000/- towards future medical expenses.

¶72

In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,46,128/- as against Rs.1,82,000/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶73

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of future earning due to	3,39,300-00
disability
Pain and suffering	50,000-00
Loss of amenities	35,000-00
Medical expenses	28,828-00
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	25,000-00
Loss of income during laid up period	58,000-00
Future medical expenses	10,000-00
TOTAL	5,46,128-00

¶74

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶75

ORDER

¶76

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;

¶77

10 -

¶78

NC: 2024:KHC:8827 MFA No. 3719 of 2022

¶79

ii) The judgment and award dated 22.02.2022 passed in MVC.No.2987/2020 by the Court of XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Member-MACT, Bengaluru, is modified;

¶80

iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,46,128/- as against Rs.1,82,000/awarded by the tribunal;

¶81

iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with interest @ 6% p.a. by the respondent-Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶82

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

¶83

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

¶84

SD/JUDGE

¶85

¶86

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

Smt Raziya Sultana v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Raziya Sultana v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.

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

Madhu a B Vs Ganghu a B

Y v Gundu Rao Vs a v Srinivasamurthy

Sri Chandrashekar Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

C.V Manjunatha Vs Kesavan

Kokilavani Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Sri Neelakantaiah Vs Mr Tajammul Pasha