Partly allowed

Manoharan v. Vinay B N

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2024MFA/4459/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured by a motorcycle while walking sought enhancement of motor accident compensation. The court raised notional income to Rs.14,000 per month per the Legal Services Authority chart, retained 15% functional disability, and enhanced several heads, awarding Rs.4,42,800 total.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.2,82,000 to Rs.4,42,800 with interest at 6% p.a., payable by respondent-insurer within four weeks; future medical expenses without interest.

Manoharan Vs Vinay B N — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:2160 MFA No. 4459 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4459 OF 2021(MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MANOHARAN, S/O ETHIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.40, FLAT NO.6 S.M. VILLA, MARUTHI LAYOUT, VASANTHPURA TEMPLE, SUBRAMANYAPURA, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU - 560 061.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. SREENIVASAIAH A., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

VINAY B.N., S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY, NO.58, EWS 2ND STAGE, 2ND CROSS, KHB COLONY, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶13

THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., R.O.NO.18, 5TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR A., ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 08.11.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH )

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:2160 MFA No. 4459 of 2021

¶17

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.03.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.451/2020 ON THE FILE OF VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT, (SCCH-5), BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 04.03.2021 passed by VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.451/2020. This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶21

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

¶22

their status before the Tribunal.

¶23

Brief facts of the case are as under;

¶24

That on 18.12.2019 at about 6.35 a.m., the claimant

¶25

was walking on the left side of the road, when he reached near Nisarga Hotel, Nrupatunga Road, at that time, a

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:2160 MFA No. 4459 of 2021

¶27

motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-02-JS-0141 ridden by its rider came in a rash and negligent manner, violating the rules and regulations, lost control and dashed against the claimant, who was a pedestrian. Immediately, he was shifted to St.Marthas Hospital, wherein he took first aid treatment and thereafter, to ESIC Medical College, PGIMSR and Model Hospital, wherein, he was admitted as an inpatient for one month.

¶28

3.1 It is stated that the claimant was working a Security Guard and earning an income of Rs.15,000/- per month. Prior to the occurrence of accident, he was hale and healthy, due to the impact of the accident, claimant suffered injuries, which was resulted in disability in future earning capacity. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

¶29

3.2 On service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed statement of objections denying the claim made by the claimant including age, avocation, income and negligence attributed

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:2160 MFA No. 4459 of 2021

¶32

against the rider of the motor cycle. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶33

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

¶34

3.4 In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and Doctor as PW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P10. On the other hand, respondents neither examined any witness nor got marked any documents.

¶35

3.5 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, the tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.2,82,000/- with interest 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and also held respondent No.2-Insurance Company to be liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and directed to deposit the amount within 60 days

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:2160 MFA No. 4459 of 2021

¶38

3.6 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation

¶39

awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶40

It is the vehement contention of the learned

¶41

counsel for appellant-claimant that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding suitable compensation and has not taken the proper income for computation, so also the tribunal has committed an error in not taking the disability at 21% as assessed by PW.2-Doctor. It is also contended that the tribunal has awarded meager compensation under other heads, which calls for interference. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the appeal preferred by the claimant and seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶42

Per contra, learned counsel for respondentInsurance company vehemently contends that the tribunal has not committed any error in awarding just and reasonable compensation. The tribunal has taken the correct multiplier for the relevant age, on the basis of the

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:2160 MFA No. 4459 of 2021

¶44

records produced. So also the assessment made by PW.2Doctor, the tribunal has rightly assessed the disability to an extent of 15% as functional disability, which does not call for interference. Learned counsel further contends that on other heads also the tribunal has award reasonable compensation, which does not call for interference. Therefore, on these grounds, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶45

Having heard learned counsel for appellantclaimant and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, perused the impugned judgment and award, it is not in dispute that on 18.12.2019, when the claimant was walking on the left side of the road, rider of the motor cycle dashed against the claimant and leading to the injuries suffered by the claimant and medical expenses expended by the claimant. In order to substantiate these aspects, the claimant has produced the documents as Exs.P1 to P10, out of which, Exs.P1 to P5 are the police records, which clearly establish the filing of FIR against the

¶46

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:2160 MFA No. 4459 of 2021

¶47

rider of the motor cycle, so also laying of the charge sheet and the same has not been questioned by the rider of the motor cycle. Hence, negligence is rightly attributed against the rider of the motor cycle. In order to establish the amount expended towards medical treatment and period of being inpatient, the claimant has produced Ex.P6 to P10, the medical records, which are not seriously disputed.

¶48

Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and income of the claimant, as on date of occurrence of accident, the claimant was aged about 56 years, which is not in dispute. The tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at ‘9’ as contemplated in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 , which does not call for interference. The income taken by the tribunal is Rs.10,000/per month as notional income. No documentary proof is produced before the tribunal to show the income. However, the notional income chart of the

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:2160 MFA No. 4459 of 2021

¶51

Legal Services Authority prescribes the income of Rs.14,000/for the accident of the year 2019.

¶52

Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.14,000/-.

¶53

PW.2 – Doctor has opined that the claimant sustained disability to the whole body at 21%. The tribunal has assessed the disability to be 15% as functional disability, on the basis of evidence adduced by PW.2Doctor, which does not call for interference. Therefore, the loss of future earning capacity due to disability would be Rs.2,26,800/- (Rs.14,000/- x 12 x 9 x 15%) as against Rs.1,62,000/- awarded by the tribunal.

¶54

The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/towards nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure, whereas, the claimant was inpatient for a period of 32 days, which is on the lower side. Therefore, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.35,000/- under this head.

¶55

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:2160 MFA No. 4459 of 2021

¶56

Towards loss of income during laid up period, the tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-. The claimant having sustained fracture in both bones and in view of enhancement of the income by this Court to Rs.14,000/per month, the claimant would require atleast four months period to recuperate and to get back to his normal day to day activities. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.56,000/- (Rs.14,000/- x 4) under the head loss of income during laid-up period.

¶57

Towards future medical expenses, PW.2-Doctor has opined that Rs.30,000/- would be required to the claimant, whereas, the tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-. This Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- under this head.

¶58

The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/towards pain and suffering, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶59

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:2160 MFA No. 4459 of 2021

¶60

The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-

¶61

towards loss of amenities. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- under this head.

¶62

In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,42,800/- as

¶63

against Rs.2,82,000/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶64

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of future earning capacity due to disability	2,26,800-00
Loss of income during laid up period	56,000-00
Nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure	35,000-00
Futuremedicalexpenses	25,000-00
Pain and suffering	75,000-00
Loss of amenities	25,000-00
TOTAL	4,42,800-00

¶65

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part ;

¶68

ii) The judgment and award dated 04.03.2021 passed by VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC.No.451/2020 is modified;

¶69

11 -

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:2160 MFA No. 4459 of 2021

¶71

iii) The claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.4,42,800/- as against Rs.2,82,000/-;

¶72

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

¶73

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

¶74

vi) Future medical expenses would not carry interest.

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

¶76

CPN CT:SNN

Manoharan v. Vinay B N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoharan v. Vinay B N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Seema Vs Union of India

Mr.Harish H.N. @ Kumar Vs the Division Manager

Sri Srinivas T B S Vs Sri China Srinivasalu Reddy

Puneeth Kumar Vs Madhu

Sri Chandra Poojari Vs Avinash

Mr Shekara Y D Vs Mr Somaraju Y S