Partly allowed

Sri Balakrishna Shetty v. Sudhakara

Karnataka HC22 Jan 2024MFA/4236/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured in a motorcycle collision appealed for enhancement of compensation. The Court applied the notional income chart (Rs.12,500 p.m.), recomputed loss of future earnings and other heads, and enhanced total compensation to Rs.2,41,000 with 6% interest payable by the insurer.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.2,41,000 with 6% p.a. interest, payable by insurer within four weeks, disbursed to claimant on deposit.

Sri Balakrishna Shetty Vs Sudhakara — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:3039 MFA No. 4236 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4236 OF 2020 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. BALAKRISHNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O SHIVRAMA SHETTY, R/O NAGAPPA BAILU IDOORU, IDOORU-KUNJHADY VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK - 576 201.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SUDHAKARA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O LATE NAGA GOWDA, R/O D.NO.1/117B, KURUDABERUMANE KALTHODU VILLAGE, BOLAMALLI POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK - 576 201.

¶14

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE: KUNDAPURA BRANCH, SRI LAXMINARASIMHA COMPLEX, NH 66, VADERHOBLI, KUNDAPURA TALUK - 576 201.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 13.07.2023)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:3039 MFA No. 4236 of 2020

¶19

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.12.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 687/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, SITTING AT KUNDAPURA, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the judgment and award of the MACT, Udupi, sitting at Kundapura (for short 'the tribunal') in MVC No.687/2018 dated 05.12.2019. This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the tribunal. Hence, the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶23

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

¶24

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶25

The claimant was traveling on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA 20 R 9443 on 15.03.2018 from Aloor Panchayath side to Chittur side, when he reached near Prashanth Kulal House, Alooru Pete, Alooru village, rider of another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA 20 EH 4741 rode

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:3039 MFA No. 4236 of 2020

¶27

the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without any signal and dashed against the vehicle of the claimant. Due to the impact of the accident claimant sustained injuries for which he took treatment and suffered permanent disability. It is the claim that he was working as a coolie, earning Rs.15,000/p.m., as he suffered injuries and expended bills towards the treatment he has filed the claim petition seeking compensation.

¶28

3.1 Upon service of notice respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2 Insurance Company filed statement of objections denying the claim of the claimant including age, avocation and income and the negligence attributed against the offending vehicle, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶29

3.2 On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and same was substantiated by adducing evidence by the claimant as PW.1 and adduced the evidence of doctor as PW.2 and got marked documents at EX.P.1 to EX.P.14.

¶30

3.3 On the basis of material evidence, tribunal awarded compensation to an extent of Rs.1,62,100/- with 6% interest from the date of petition till its realization and also directed respondent No.2 to pay the compensation within 30 days.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:3039 MFA No. 4236 of 2020

¶33

It is the contention of the claimant that tribunal has awarded meager compensation ignoring the materials placed on record and seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently objects to the arguments put forth on the ground that the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation which does not call for interference. He also contends that under several heads the tribunal has awarded suitable compensation, thereby no interference is called for at the hands of this Court.

¶35

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. It is not in dispute that the accident has occurred on 15.03.2018. When the claimant was traveling on his motorcycle he was hit by another motorcycle, the offending vehicle. To establish the same EXs.P1 to P14 are filed which are police records and the medical records, which are not in serious dispute. Under the circumstances, the short point for consideration would be,

¶36

" Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal requires enhancement?"

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:3039 MFA No. 4236 of 2020

¶39

Admittedly no proof of income is produced by the claimant. Since he is a coolie and daily wager, the Notional Income Chart will have to be relied upon. As per the Legal Services Authority Chart, the notional income for the Accident Year - 2018 is Rs.12,500/- p.m. and the same is taken as against Rs.9,000/-, adopted by the tribunal.

¶40

The doctor has adduced evidence in the form of PW.2 and he has deposed that there is a disability to an extent of 14% to the right upper limb. The tribunal has assessed the disability at 5% as whole body disability. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The claimant is aged 44 years. Accordingly the appropriate multiplier would be '14' which is rightly taken by the tribunal. Therefore, the loss of future earning capacity due to disability would be (12,500 x 12 x 14 x 5%) Rs.1,05,000/- as against Rs.75,600/-.

¶41

Towards pain an suffering the tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/-. I deem it appropriate to award additional Rs.15,000/- under this head. Towards medical bills the tribunal has awarded Rs.18,000/-, which does not call for interference, same is retained. Towards loss of income during

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:3039 MFA No. 4236 of 2020

¶43

laid up period the tribunal has awarded Rs.18,000/-. In view of this Court enhancing the income per month to Rs.12,500/- for three months it would be Rs.37,500/- . Towards conveyance,

¶44

food, nutrition, attendant charges the tribunal has awarded Rs.10,500/-. I do not find any grounds to interfere and the same is retained. Towards loss of amenities of life the tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-, an additional Rs.15,000/- is awarded under this head making it Rs.25,000/- . In all the claimant would be entitled to Rs.2,41,000/- as against Rs.1,62,100/-

¶45

with interest at 6% p.a. as mentioned in the table below:

¶46

Sl. No.	Heads	Amount in Rs.
1.	Pain and Sufferings	45,000/-
2.	Medical Bills	18,000/-
3.	Food, nourishment, conveyance and Attendant charges	10,500/-
4.	Loss of income during laid up Period & rest period	37,500/-
5.	Loss of amenities	25,000/-
6.	Loss of future earnings	1,05,000/-
	Total	2,41,000/-

¶47

Accordingly, I pass the following

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:3039 MFA No. 4236 of 2020

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) The appeal is allowed in part;

¶52

(ii) The judgment and award passed by the MACT, Udupi, sitting at Kundapura in MVC No.687/2018 dated 05.12.2019 is modified;

¶53

(iii) The claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,41,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a. as against Rs.1,62,100/-.

¶54

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

¶55

(v) On deposit of the same, the entire amount shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant upon proper verification.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19 CT: BHK

Sri Balakrishna Shetty v. Sudhakara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Balakrishna Shetty v. Sudhakara

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

Ramesha Vs Mahadeva

Mahadeva Naik B. M. Vs P. R. Rajendran

Santhosh Poojary Vs Sathish

Eshwar Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

Sri Kumara Vs Sri Ramesha

Ashwini T N Vs Hussain Sab