Partly allowed

Smt Khateeja v. B Dayananda

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2024MFA/4666/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka allowed the motor accident compensation appeal in part, enhancing the award from Rs. 14.90 lakhs to Rs. 28.29 lakhs by recalculating loss of future income using Rs. 9,800 monthly and a 16x multiplier, and increasing other heads like pain and suffering and attendant charges.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 28,29,988/- with interest at 6% per annum; 80% to be invested in fixed deposit; appeal allowed in part.

Smt Khateeja Vs B Dayananda — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:49950 MFA No. 4666 of 2018

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4666 OF 2018

¶6

(MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT KHATEEJA W/O JABBAR @ ABDUL JABBAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, REP BY N/F BROTHER UMMAR K., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O SIDDI HAJI R/AT "NETHIMARI HOUSE PANAJE POST PUTTUR TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-577373

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

B DAYANANDA S/O KUNHI RAMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT "JAINARAGURI MANE" BANNURU VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-577635.

¶14

THE UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD., PUTTUR REP BY ITS NEAREST DIVISIONAL OFFICE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, JEWEL PLAZA OPP SRINIDHI MEDICAL, NEAR CHITTHARANJAN CIRCLE, UDUPI-577635

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. O.MAHESH., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 IS SERVED)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:49950 MFA No. 4666 of 2018

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.726/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

The claimant is in appeal being dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.14,90,388/-.

¶23

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

¶24

The Tribunal after taking into consideration the fact that the claimant was brought to the Court on a stretcher and was unable to come to the first floor of the Court premises has concluded that the claimant had suffered disability to the extent of 100% and awarded a sum of Rs.9,60,000/- towards loss of future income , by taking the monthly notional income

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49950 MFA No. 4666 of 2018

¶26

at Rs.5,000/- as there was no proof of her actual income.

¶27

The assessment of whole body disability of the claimant at 100% by the Tribunal is based on the medical evidence adduced before it and hence, the same is hereby affirmed.

¶28

In cases where there is no proof of actual income, it would be appropriate to adopt the monthly notional income determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority at Rs.7,000/- for the accidents in the year 2012 .

¶29

As the injured claimant was aged about 34 years as on the date of the accident and she has suffered a 100% whole body disability, as per the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi¹ , future prospects of 40%

¶30

1 National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others - (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:49950 MFA No. 4666 of 2018

¶32

(Rs.2,800/-) would have to be added. The net income

¶33

would be Rs.9,800/- .

¶34

Further, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma² , having regard to the fact that the claimant was aged about 34 years as on the date of the accident, a multiplier of ' 16 ’ would have to be applied.

¶35

Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.18,81,600/- (Rs.9,800/- x 12 x ‘16’ x 100%) towards

¶36

'loss of future income' .

¶37

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,55,388/- towards medical expenses , and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medical expenses, which are based on the medical evidence and hence stand affirmed.

¶38

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,00,000/-

¶39

2 Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:49950 MFA No. 4666 of 2018

¶41

towards loss of amenities . In my view, having regard to the fact that the claimant is disabled permanently, it would be appropriate to enhance the said sums to Rs.2,00,000/- each under these heads.

¶42

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/towards conveyance, food and nourishment charges . In my view, this sum would have to be enhanced to Rs.40,000/- , since the claimant was hospitalized for 18 days.

¶43

The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/towards future attendant charges , since the claimant was in a vegetative state from the date of the accident. In my view, having regard to the fact the claimant was in a vegetative state, it would be appropriate to enhance the said sum to

¶44

Rs.2,50,000/- towards attendant charges .

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:49950 MFA No. 4666 of 2018

¶46

Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified

¶47

and the claimant would be held entitled to the

¶48

following compensation:

¶49

Sl. No.	Nature of Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (In Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (In Rs.)
1.	Loss of future income	9,60,000/-	18,81,600/- (Rs.9,800/- x 12 x‘16’ x 100%)
2.	Pain and sufferings	1,00,000/-	2,00,000/-
3.	Loss of amenities in life	1,00,000/-	2,00,000/-
4.	Medical expenses	1,55,388/-	1,58,388/-
5.	Conveyance, food and nourishment charges	25,000/-	40,000/-
6.	Future medical expenses	1,00,000/-	1,00,000/-
7.	Future attendant charges	50,000/-	2,50,000/-
	Total	14,90,388/-	28,29,988/-

¶50

Thus, the claimant is held entitled to the total compensation of Rs.28,29,988/- as against Rs.14,90,388/-, along with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum (as against 8%) from the date of the petition till its realization. However, the claimant would not be entitled to interest for the delay period of 359 days in filing the appeal.

¶51

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:49950 MFA No. 4666 of 2018

¶52

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

¶53

On such deposit, out of the compensation and interest, 80% of the same shall be invested in a fixed deposit in the name of the claimant in any nationalized bank or post office for a period of ten years. The claimant shall be at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued thereon. Balance 20% of the compensation shall be paid to the claimant on proper identification.

¶54

The appeal is accordingly allowed in part .

¶55

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶56

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56

Smt Khateeja v. B Dayananda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Khateeja v. B Dayananda

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

Kalegowda Vs Javaraiah

M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited Vs Kiran Kumar

Shabana Vs M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Pushpa B L Vs Reliance GlC Ltd.

Syed Usman Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

The Divisional Manager Vs Nanjesh