Partly allowed

Lalithamma v. the General Manager

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2024MFA/4730/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous first appeal under the MV Act, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to an accident claimant. The court adjusted amounts for pain and suffering and loss of amenities and awarded a new sum for loss of earnings, directing the insurer to deposit the total enhancement within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs. 1,00,000/- to cover increased pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of earnings.

Lalithamma Vs the General Manager — Medical Negligence | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:19464-DB MFA No. 4730 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4730 OF 2022(MV-I)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

LALITHAMMA W/O. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT 4^TH MAIN ROAD, BEHIND GANESHA TEMPLE, SADASHIVANAGARA, TUMKUR TOWN, TUMKUR-572 102.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. ANANTHARAMA C., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE GENERAL MANAGER UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE NO.7/3, 2^ND FLOOR, KVD TOWER, OLD MADRAS ROAD, INDIRANAGARA, BENGALURU-560038.

¶16

K. KUMAR

¶17

S/O. KUMARVEL P., NO.4/5A, MOTTAIYAN STREET, M. CHIETTIPATTY, OMALUR TALUK, SELAM DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE-600 095.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2- SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

¶20

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.09.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 4244/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:19464-DB MFA No. 4730 of 2022

¶22

SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (S.C.C.H-1), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, DR. CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Heard Sri.C.Anantharama, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.Rajendra Hegde, learned counsel who is representing respondent No.1 - Insurance Company.

¶26

Dissatisfied with the amount awarded as compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, through orders in MVC No.4244/2019 dated 01.09.2021, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant.

¶27

Arguing in respect of merits of the matter learned counsel Sri.Anantharama C. who is representing the appellant submits that the appellant sustained grievous injury due to the accident and she was hospitalized for a period of 60 days. Learned counsel also states that the appellant took extensive treatment and underwent several surgeries. Learned counsel further submits that though through all the evidence produced the appellant has established that she became permanently

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:19464-DB MFA No. 4730 of 2022

¶29

disabled and though the Doctor who was examined as PW4 stated that disability towards whole body is 26%, yet the Tribunal did not award any amount towards loss of amenities present and future and therefore, the present appeal is preferred. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement of compensation.

¶30

On the other hand Sri.Rajenda Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that the appellant sustained only simple injury as noted in the wound certificate and thus, the amount awarded as compensation is exorbitant. Learned counsel further contends that PW4 did not treat the appellant and further there are no fractures at any part of the body and thus, it cannot be held that the appellant is permanently disabled.

¶31

We have gone through the entire material that is brought on record. As per the material available on record, the appellant met with an accident on 06.1.2019. She was shifted to hospital i.e. Basavanagudi Medical Centre, Bengaluru and she was discharged against the medical advice on 08.01.2019. Thereafter, she took treatment at District Hospital, Tumakuru

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:19464-DB MFA No. 4730 of 2022

¶33

from 08.01.2019 till 10.02.2019. Further, she took treatment as inpatient at Sri.Siddhartha Hospital, Tumakuru from 07.03.2019 to 01.04.2019. By the contents of Exs.P7 to P9 it is clear that the appellant sustained degloving injury on left thigh. It is also clear that the appellant underwent split skin grafting surgery on 16.03.2019. However, we are not convinced with the evidence of PW4, who states that the disability is 26% in respect of whole body. PW4 as clearly noted by the Tribunal in the impugned order admitted during the course of cross examination that there is no fracture to the

¶34

hip, knee or ankle. The appellant also failed to produce any substantive proof with regard to her occupation and earnings as on the date of accident. The Tribunal through the impugned

¶35

has awarded compensation under the following heads:

¶36

Sl. No	Head of compensation	Amount Rs.
1	Pain and sufferings	60,000.00
2	Medical expenses	86,400.00
3	Food and nourishment, attendant charges	60,000.00
4	Transportation charges	05,000.00
5	Los of amenities	1,00,000.00
	Total	3,11,400.00

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:19464-DB MFA No. 4730 of 2022

¶38

Having considered the totality of the evidence produced, we are of the considered view that the sum awarded under the head pain and sufferings is required to be increased by Rs.15,000/-, likewise a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which was awarded towards loss of amenities is required to be enhanced to Rs.1,35,000/-. In the same manner, as no amount is awarded under the head loss of earnings, as it is clearly brought on record that the appellant took treatment as inpatient for a considerable period, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.50,000/- is required to be awarded under the head loss of earnings from the date of accident till recovery. Therefore, in all, the appellant is entitled for a enhanced sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus, in the light of the foregoing discussion the following order is passed.

¶39

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶40

(ii) The amount awarded as compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, through orders in MVC No.4244/2019 dated 01.09.2021 is enhanced by Rs.1,00,000/- .

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:19464-DB MFA No. 4730 of 2022

¶42

(iii) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶43

(iv) Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶44

(v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to

¶45

withdraw the entire amount.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

Lalithamma v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalithamma v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. v. Kamalakannan Vs State of Karnataka

H Nagabushan Vs Halappa M G

Mr Bharat Pundalik Naik Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rahul Somanna @ G U Somanna Vs Smt. Paithra M C

M/S Prakash Bus Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S Vision India

Smt Chikkamma Since Dead by Her Lrs Smt. Lalithamma Vs the Special Land Acquisiton Officer