Partly allowed

Chandra G v. M/S Icici Lambord Gen Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2024MFA/45/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident appeal challenging 20% contributory negligence and seeking enhanced compensation for leg fractures. The court held the insurer liable for entire compensation, raised disability to 15%, adopted notional income of Rs.9,000, and enhanced total compensation to Rs.4,55,000 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.4,55,000 with 6% p.a. interest; insurer directed to deposit within two months.

Chandra G Vs M/S Icici Lambord Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:45841 MFA No. 45 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

CHANDRA G

¶8

S/O LATE CHANNAPPA G, AGED 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.125/1, THIMMAIAH REDDY BUILDING, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, DODDATHOGURU,

¶9

BENGALURU-560100

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. THIPPESWAMY.B.C., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

M/S ICICI LAMBORD GEN INSURANCE CO LTD NO.89, 2^ND FLOOR, SVT COMPLEX, MADIWALA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560068 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶16

LAKSHMIKANTH MAKARAJU S/O MAKARAJU SATHYANARAYANA RAJU, MAJOR, FLAT NO.TO 2, SAI BALAJI SUNRISE, GREEN HOUSE LAYOUT, DODDATHOGURU VILLAGE, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE-I, NEAR NARASIMHASWAMY TEMPLE, BENGALURU-560103

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KRISHNA KISHORE S., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; VIDE ORDER DATED:07.02.2023, NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:45841 MFA No. 45 of 2018

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.887/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SCJ & XIX ACMM MEBMER-MACT, BENGLAURU. C/C OF II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND XXVII ACMM. PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

The claimant, being aggrieved by the attribution of negligence to the extent of 20% on him and also seeking enhancement of compensation, is in appeal.

¶25

The occurrence of the accident and the liability to pay compensation are not in dispute.

¶26

The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the claimant had also contributed to the occurrence of the accident to the extent of 20% since he was crossing the road at a place where there was no zebra-crossing. In my view, this reasoning of the Tribunal would be incorrect since the mere crossing of a road at a place which had been

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:45841 MFA No. 45 of 2018

¶29

earmarked for crossing would not entitle the driver of the motorcycle to cause an accident. It is also noticed that the charge sheet was laid against the rider of the offending vehicle and consequently, the attribution of negligence on the claimant would therefore be incorrect. In that view of the matter, the insurer is held liable to pay entire compensation.

¶30

As far as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 10% to the whole body. Having regard to the fact that the claimant had suffered fracture of both bones of his right leg, it would be appropriate to assess the disability at 15% to the whole body.

¶31

The Tribunal has assessed the notional income at Rs.7,000/- since there was no actual proof of income. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to adopt the notional income determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which, for the accident of the year 2015, would be Rs.9,000/-. Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.2,43,000/- (Rs.9,000/- X 12 X 15 X 15%) towards loss of future earnings.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:45841 MFA No. 45 of 2018

¶34

Since the claimant suffered fracture of both bones of his right leg and the Tribunal has not awarded any sums towards loss of amenities, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- as against Rs.40,000/towards pain and suffering and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities.

¶35

As the claimant suffered 15% disability, it would be appropriate to treat the laid up period as 3 months and consequently, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.27,000/- (Rs.9,000 X 3 months) towards loss of income during laid up period.

¶36

Since the claimant was hospitalized for about 9 days, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- as against Rs.15,000/- towards conveyance, nourishment and nutritious food.

¶37

The amount of Rs.75,000/- awarded towards medical expenses, being based on documentary evidence, is affirmed.

¶38

Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and the following sums are awarded as compensation:

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:45841 MFA No. 45 of 2018

¶41

Sl. No.	Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
1.	Pain and sufferings	40,000	50,000
2.	Loss of future earnings	1,26,000	2,43,000
3.	Medical expenses	75,000	75,000
4.	Loss of income during the laid up period	Nil	27,000
5.	Conveyance, nourishment and nutritious food	15,000	20,000
6.	Loss of amenities in life	Nil	40,000
	Total	2,56,000	4,55,000

¶42

Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled for compensation of Rs.4,55,000/- as against Rs.2,56,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶43

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

¶44

this judgment.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:45841 MFA No. 45 of 2018

¶47

On such deposit being made by the insurer, the

¶48

claimant would be entitled to withdraw the same.

¶49

The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.

¶50

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶51

PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Chandra G v. M/S Icici Lambord Gen Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra G v. M/S Icici Lambord Gen Insurance Co. 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

Sri. Kumar Vs Sri. C. Nagappa

Sri. Kandan N Vs Sri. R. Paramesh

Sri Ravikumar Vs Sri Chandrashekar v Bhat

The Branch Manager Vs Smt. Parvathamma

Prabhakar Reddy Vs the Manager

Karnataka State Road Vs Chikkalingamma