Partly allowed

Sri Bettaswamy v. Sri Gangaiah

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2024MFA/395/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurer challenged a motor accident award alleging false implication of the tractor; claimant sought enhancement. The court rejected the insurer's contention based on the wound certificate and enhanced compensation to about Rs.23,63,000 using Rs.9,500 notional income with 40% future prospects, allowing the claimant's appeal in part.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.23,63,000 with 6% interest on enhanced amount; insurer's appeal dismissed; deposit directions issued.

Sri Bettaswamy Vs Sri Gangaiah — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:44400 MFA No. 395 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 3444 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶4

MFA NO. 395 OF 2019 C/W MFA NO. 3444 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶5

IN MFA No. 395/2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI BETTASWAMY S/O GANGAIAH NOW AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT AREPALYA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT …APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADV.)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI GANGAIAH S/O BETTAIAH MAJOR IN AGE AREPALYA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 130

¶12

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD 1^ST FLOOR, ABHARANA ARCADE M G ROAD, TUMKUR – 572 101 REP BY ITS MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADV. FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 10.03.2020, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶13

NC: 2024:KHC:44400 MFA No. 395 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 3444 of 2018

¶14

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03/02/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.2735/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-16), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶16

IN MFA NO. 3444/2018

¶17

BETWEEN:

¶18

M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INUSRANCE CO. LTD. 1^ST FLOOR, ABHARANA ARCADE M.G. ROAD, TUMKUR - 572101 REP. BY REGIONAL OFFICE NO.30, 3^RD FLOOR, JNR CITY CENTRE RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 027 BY ITS STATE HEAD LEGAL MR. S.K. SANDEEP ...APPELLANT

¶19

(BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI., ADV.)

¶20

AND:

¶21

SRI BETTASWAMY S/O. GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O. AREPALYA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK – 572 114

¶22

SRI. GANGAIAH S/O. BETTAIAH MAJOR IN AGE R/O. AREPALYA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK – 572 114

¶23

..RESPONDENTS

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:44400 MFA No. 395 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 3444 of 2018

¶26

(BY SRI.N.GOPAL KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶27

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.2735/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCH-16), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.14,32,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶28

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

The insurer is in appeal challenging the award of Rs.14,31,630/- granted to the claimant for the injuries suffered by him in an accident which was stated to have occurred on 07.01.2016.

¶32

The claimant is also in appeal seeking enhancement.

¶33

It is the case of the insurer that this was a clear case

¶34

of implication of the tractor only to secure compensation for the injuries suffered by the claimant.

¶35

Learned counsel for the insurer contends that the

¶36

wound certificate at Ex.P-5 merely states that the claimant

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:44400 MFA No. 395 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 3444 of 2018

¶39

was brought to the hospital with a history of road traffic accident by a tractor. He submits that since it is the admitted case of the claimant that the tractor was owned by his father and was being driven by his brother and under normal circumstances, the brother who took him to the hospital ought to have mentioned the tractor number. It is contended that since the tractor number has not been mentioned, the entire involvement of the tractor owned by the claimants will be in serious doubt. He also submits a fact that an FIR was registered on the following day and that there was a discrepancy in the manner of occurrence of the accident. In my view, this argument cannot be accepted.

¶40

As could be seen from the wound certificate Ex.P-5, which was recorded immediately after the accident, there is a clear mention about the claimant being brought to the hospital with a history of road traffic accident.

¶41

It is to be noticed here that if the claimant had

¶42

suffered an injury as a result of the use of the tractor

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44400 MFA No. 395 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 3444 of 2018

¶44

owned by his father which was incidentally driven by his brother, the question of naming the tractor would not by itself be of any significance. It was the intention of the claimants to manipulate the records and create the story of an accident, they would not have indicated that it was a road traffic accident by a tractor and, therefore, I am of the view that the mere non-mentioning of the position of the tractor will not lead to the inference that the accident did occur in the manner stated by the claimant.

¶45

It may also be noticed here that the claimant has suffered a serious crush injury in his left foot, which has ultimately resulted in his amputation of the left foot above the right knee. So, in such a situation where the claimant has suffered a serious crush injury, the non-mentioning of the registration number of the tractor by the claimant or by his brother would be really of no significance at all. I find no reason to entertain the appeal of the insurer and

¶46

the appeal is therefore dismissed .

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:44400 MFA No. 395 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 3444 of 2018

¶49

As far as the enhancement of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has accepted the disability of the claimant at 70% as opined by the doctor. In my view, this assessment of disability at 70% to the whole body cannot be found fault with and is, therefore, maintained.

¶50

However, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the claimant as Rs.8,000/-, since there was no evidence to that effect. As the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority has determined the notional income as Rs.9,500/- for the accident of the year 2016, it would be appropriate to determine the notional income of the claimant at Rs.9,500/-.

¶51

Since the claimant was aged 28 years and the disability suffered is at 70%, 40% is to be added towards future prospects to determine monthly income of the claimant for awarding compensation towards ‘loss of future income’ which comes to Rs.13,300/-.

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:44400 MFA No. 395 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 3444 of 2018

¶53

¶54

Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a

¶55

sum of Rs.18,99,240/- (Rs.13,300/- X 12 X ‘17’ X 70%) towards ‘loss of future income.

¶56

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/towards ‘pain and suffering’ and Rs.25,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities in life’. In my view, it would be appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.1,00,000/- each under said heads, having regard to the fact that the amputation is above the right knee.

¶57

The Tribunal has award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards ‘attendant charges, nutritious food and conveyance expenses’ which should have been marginally increased to Rs.10,000/-. Since the income is enhanced from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9,500/-, the claimant is entitled to Rs.28,500/- (Rs.9,500/- x 3 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid-up period’.

¶58

As regards Rs.1,75,230/- awarded towards medical expenses, the same is based on documentary evidence, in

¶59

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:44400 MFA No. 395 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 3444 of 2018

¶61

my view, the same is just and proper and is accordingly affirmed.

¶62

Since the claimant has suffered an amputation above the right knee, it would also be appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- for securing an artificial limb.

¶63

16. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified

¶64

and the following sums are awarded as compensation:

¶65

Sl. No.	Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
1.	Pain and sufferings	60,000/-	1,00,000/-
2.	Loss of future earnings	11,42,400/-	18,99,240/-
3.	Medical expenses	1,75,230/-	1,75,230/-
4.	Loss of income during the laid up period	24,000/-	28,500/-
5.	Conveyance, nourishment and nutritious food	5,000/-	10,000/-
6.	Loss of amenities in life	25,000/-	1,00,000/-

¶66

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:44400 MFA No. 395 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 3444 of 2018

¶68

7.	Artificial Limb	Nil	50,000/-
	Total	14,31,630/-	23,62,970/-

¶69

Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.23,63,000/- (rounded off) as against Rs.14,32,000/- (rounded off) along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶70

However, the claimant would not be entitled to interest on the delayed period, as per order dated 25.08.2021.

¶71

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶72

Upon deposit, Rs.12,00,000/- shall be invested in a

¶73

fixed deposit for a period of Ten years in the name of claimant in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank of the claimant’s choice with liberty to withdraw the interest accrued thereon, periodically, on the compensation

¶74

NC: 2024:KHC:44400 MFA No. 395 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 3444 of 2018

¶75

10 -

¶76

amount. After maturity, the Bank shall release the amount in favour of claimant without any further proceedings. The remaining amount shall be released in favour of claimant after proper identification.

¶77

The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶78

The appeal filed by the claimant is accordingly,

¶79

allowed in part .

¶80

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶81

HNM

¶82

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Sri Bettaswamy v. Sri Gangaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Bettaswamy v. Sri Gangaiah

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 Executive Engineer (Ele) Vs Smt a Selvi

Mr. N. J. Kiran Vs Mrs. Chaitra

Sri Yashwanth D Vs Sri Rafiq Ulla

Smt. Fakrumbi Vs the Tahasildar

The Branch Manager Vs Smt. Mahadevi

Mr Syed Aleem Vs Sri Harry Karthik