Allowed

Shanthabai @ Sahanthavva Goundi v. M P Karthikeyan

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2024MFA/3820/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an appeal filed by an injured motor accident victim seeking enhancement of compensation. The court held that the tribunal erred in not adding 10% of earnings for future prospects and adopted a higher notional income. Compensation was enhanced to Rs. 3,41,664 with interest. This is a motor accident claims matter.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 2,32,000 to Rs. 3,41,664 with interest at 6% per annum. Respondent directed to deposit the enhanced sum. Appellant permitted to withdraw amount after deposit.

Shanthabai @ Sahanthavva Goundi Vs M P Karthikeyan — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38071 MFA No. 3820 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3820 OF 2021(MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHANTHABAI @ SAHANTHAVVA GOUNDI, W/O SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO. 48, JALWAD SINDIGI TALUK, BIJAPUR DISTRICT, NOW R/AT NO. 335, 5^TH CROSS, RAVINDRA NAGARA GUTTE, T.D. DASARAHALLI POST, BENGALURU 560 057

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. M.V. MAHESWARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH 1. M.P. KARTHIKEYAN, COURT OF KARNATAKA S/O N. PERISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF ROYAL TRAVELS, NO. 58/1, KURAJI STREET, BHARATHINAGAR, ARIYANKUPPAN POST, PONDICHERRY, AND HAVING OFFICE AT ROYAL TRAVELS, KAMASKSHI PALYA, BENGALURU 560 001

¶12

¶13

NC: 2024:KHC:38071 MFA No. 3820 of 2021

¶14

THE BRANCH MANGER

¶15

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, KRUSHI BHAVAN, NEAR CORPORATION, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU 560 009

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH, V/O DATED: 24.08.2023)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.04.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3467/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-14), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS

¶20

DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Heard Sri.M.V.Maheshwarappa learned counsel for

¶24

the appellant as well as Sri.A.Ravishankar learned counsel

¶25

for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

¶26

Dissatisfied with the amount that is awarded as

¶27

compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38071 MFA No. 3820 of 2021

¶29

Bengaluru through orders in M.V.C. No.3467/2018 dated 27.04.2019, the claimant is before this court by way of appeal.

¶30

Sri. M.V.Maheshwarappa, learned counsel for appellant, arguing the matter, contends that the appellant sustained grievous injuries due to the accident and became completely disabled. Though the doctor who assessed the disability, appeared before the Court and gave evidence to the effect that the disability in respect of whole body is 19%, the tribunal took the disability as 12% and awarded a meager sum as compensation. Learned counsel also states that the compensation awarded under all other heads is also grossly low. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant as a Tailor was earning Rs.800/- per day but the tribunal took the notional income as Rs.7,000/- per month, which is unjustifiable.

¶31

Learned counsel submits that the accident

¶32

occurred in the year 2017 and for the relevant period, the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38071 MFA No. 3820 of 2021

¶34

notional income as Rs.11,000/- per month and atleast a

¶35

said figure should have been considered by the tribunal.

¶36

Sri.A.Ravishankar learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company though contends that the amount awarded as compensation is just and reasonable, did not deny the submission that is made by learned counsel for the appellant that the notional income is required to be taken as Rs.11,000/- per month. Also the request made is justifiable.

¶37

Though learned counsel Sri.M.V.Maheshwarappa

¶38

argues that the disability taken i.e., 12% in respect of whole body is erroneous, however having considered the detailed discusses that is made by the tribunal in that regard in the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the said observation made by the tribunal needs no interference. However, the tribunal did not add future prospects. Admittedly, the appellant was aged about 53 years by the date of accident. Therefore, 10% of the earnings are required to be added towards future

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38071 MFA No. 3820 of 2021

¶40

prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Thus, taking the notional income as Rs.11,000/- per month, adding 10% of the earnings towards future prospects, the permanent physical disability being 12% in respect of whole body and applying the appropriate multiplier '11', the amount which the appellant is entitled to under the head loss of future earnings due to permanent physical disability is as under:-

¶41

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Notional monthly income	11,000-00
Annual income	1,32,000-00
Add 10% towards future prospects	1,45,200-00
Apply appropriate multiplier '11'	15,97,200-00
Loss of future earnings, permanent physical disability being 12%	1,91,664-00

¶42

It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained

¶43

fracture of left ankle which is grievous in nature and laceration on right ankle, which is simple in nature. Also it

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38071 MFA No. 3820 of 2021

¶45

is not in dispute that the appellant took treatment as inpatient for a period of 13 days.

¶46

Having considered the nature of injuries sustained,

¶47

this Court is of the view that the appellant would not have attended her normal pursuits atleast for a period of three months. Thus, the loss of earnings during laid up period comes to Rs.33,000/-(Rs.11,000 x 3). Also this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head pain and suffering. Also, the justifiable sum that is required to be awarded towards food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges is Rs.20,000/-. Thus, a compensation which the appellant is

¶48

entitled to is as under:-

¶49

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Compensation for pain and suffering	40,000-00
Towards food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	20,000-00
Medical expenses	27,000-00
Loss of income during laid up period	33,000-00
Loss of future earnings	1,91,664-00
Loss of amenities	30,000-00

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:38071 MFA No. 3820 of 2021

¶52

Total

¶53

3,41,664-00

¶54

Thus, this Court is of the view that the justifiable

¶55

sum which the appellant is entitled to as compensation is Rs.3,41,664/-.

¶56

Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following

¶57

ORDER

¶58

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶59

ii. The compensation that is awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore through orders in M.V.C. No.3467/2018 dated 27.04.2019 is enhanced from Rs.2,32,000/- to Rs.3,41,664/-.

¶60

iii. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶61

iv. 2^nd respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced

¶62

sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶63

NC: 2024:KHC:38071 MFA No. 3820 of 2021

¶64

¶65

v. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to

¶66

withdraw the entire amount.

¶67

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶68

VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63

Shanthabai @ Sahanthavva Goundi v. M P Karthikeyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanthabai @ Sahanthavva Goundi v. M P Karthikeyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Sriram Vs the Managing Director

Suhas N Vs Rakesh H R

Sri. M. Narayanappa Vs M. Manjunath

Sannakariyappa Vs Rajanna

Jithendra Vs Keshavamurthy. K. R.

Smt Nagamma Vs Shri R Srinivas