Partly allowed

Cheluvaraju v. Dr Sujatha Desai

Karnataka HC19 Aug 2024MFA/4758/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant sought enhancement of compensation for injuries from a 2014 road accident involving an insured car. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.1,23,300/- despite no doctor being examined. The court held documentary evidence sufficed and enhanced compensation by Rs.25,000/- with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.25,000/- with 6% interest; respondent no.2 insurer to deposit before Tribunal within six weeks.

Cheluvaraju Vs Dr Sujatha Desai — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:33104 MFA No. 4758 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4758/2017 (MV-I)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

CHELUVARAJU

¶7

S/O CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT ALENEHALLI, AKKIBAL HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK,

¶8

MANDYA DISTRICT

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

[BY SRI HALESHA R.G., ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶11

AND:

¶12

DR SUJATHA DESAI W/O R RAGAVENDRA, NO.346, 1^ST FLOOR, 12^TH CROSS, 7^TH MAIN, 2^ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 11.

¶13

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD REGIONAL OFFICE, 1^ST FLOOR, H.M.GENEVA HOUSE, NO.14, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 52.

¶15

(BY SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PH); NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED 10.01.2023)

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED14.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.852/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, & XIX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-23), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:33104 MFA No. 4758 of 2017

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Challenging judgment and award dated 14.06.2016 passed by XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-23) (for short 'Tribunal') in MVC.no.852/2015, this appeal is filed by claimant.

¶24

Sri Halesha R.G., learned counsel for appellant submitted that appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted on 06.07.2014 at about 5:30 p.m. when claimant was crossing Bangalore - Mysore Road at Kenchanakuppe Janatha Colony Gate near Bidadi Town, a Car bearing registration no.KA-02-MB-3814 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner came from Mysore side and dashed against claimant causing grievous injuries namely (i) left ear laceration irregularly (avulsion of ankle); (ii) right frontal aspect contusion with Subarachnoid hemorrhage with cerebral odema and (iii) laceration great toe of left foot and other grievous injuries all over body. Immediately after accident, he was shifted to Bidadi Govt. Hospital for first aid treatment and thereafter Pulse Multiple Specialty Hospital, Bangalore, wherein he took inpatient from 06.07.2014 to 14.07.2014. He claims to have undergone surgery and to be under treatment even as on

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:33104 MFA No. 4758 of 2017

¶27

today. It was submitted that claimant had spent substantial amount towards medical expenses and sustained permanent disability and consequent loss of earning capacity. Despite same, Tribunal had awarded inadequate compensation and therefore sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶28

On other hand, Sri Pradeep B., learned counsel for respondent no.2 - insurer sought to oppose appeal. It was submitted, injuries sustained by claimant were non-grievous and were contusions and lacerations. Considering same, compensation awarded by Tribunal was just and proper and did not call for enhancement. Though claimant claimed that he had sustained permanent disability, he did not substantiate same by examining doctor, who had treated him. Consequently appeal was without merit and sought for dismissal.

¶29

Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and award and record.

¶30

From above since claimant is seeking for enhancement, point that would arises for consideration is:

¶31

"Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?"

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:33104 MFA No. 4758 of 2017

¶34

Occurrence of accident involving insured vehicle on

¶35

06.07.2014 leading to claimant sustaining injuries and taking treatment are not in dispute. Claimant has stated that prior to accident, he was 25 years of age, hale and healthy working as Agriculturist-cum-Sericulturist and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. After accident, he was completely bedridden due to frequent headache and giddiness etc. and therefore lost earning capacity. Taking note of nature of injuries, Tribunal has assessed compensation towards pain and suffering at Rs.25,000/-. It determined notional income of claimant at Rs.8,000/- and assessing loss of earning for period of two months as laid up, it granted Rs.16,000/-. Taking note of total amount for which medical bills were produced, it has awarded Rs.72,300/- same is in complete reimbursement of medical expenses. It has also awarded Rs.10,000/- under head of food, conveyance and nourishment etc. thereby arriving at total compensation of Rs.1,23,300/-.

¶36

Though, claimant did not examine doctor who treated him to substantiate disability, discharge summary, medical bills, prescriptions, medico legal register and discharge summary marked as Exs.P7 to P11 respectively would indicate nature of injuries sustained and treatment administered. From

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:33104 MFA No. 4758 of 2017

¶39

same, it could be seen that claimant has been treated for head

¶40

injury. Merely on ground that he did not examine doctor to substantiate exact extent of disability would not be good ground to deny compensation under said head. On considering totality of circumstances, it would be appropriate to enhance compensation awarded by a further sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earning capacity/amenities in lump-sum. Hence, point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative as above. Consequently, following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶43

ii. Claimant is held entitled for further compensation of Rs.25,000/- apart from Rs.1,23,300/- awarded by Tribunal which shall carry interest at rate of 6% per annum from date of claim petition till payment.

¶44

iii. Respondent no.2 shall deposit enhanced compensation before Tribunal within six weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶45

iv. On deposit same to be released to claimant.

¶46

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶47

GRD

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Cheluvaraju v. Dr Sujatha Desai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cheluvaraju v. Dr Sujatha Desai

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

Nagappa Reddy Vs Doddanarasappa Reddy

Sri. B. Sridhar Vallur Vs Smt. C. G. Kalpana

S a Imthiyaz Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Mr v Lakshmi Pathi Vs Mr D Sadayan

Siddaraju Vs L and T General Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Manager Vs Pavan K R