Partly allowed

Smt Yellamma v. Sri C Shivakumar

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2024MFA/5085/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured in a road traffic accident sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The High Court adopted Rs.9,000 per month as notional income per KSLSA guidelines, recomputed loss of future income with multiplier 15 at 16% disability, and enhanced compensation to Rs.4,89,900 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.4,23,400 to Rs.4,89,900 with interest @6% p.a.; Insurance Company directed to deposit within six weeks.

Smt Yellamma Vs Sri C Shivakumar — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:32248 MFA No. 5085 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5085 OF 2019 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT YELLAMMA W/O SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O PADAKASHTI VILLAGE AVANI HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563131

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. NANJUNDA GOWDA M R.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI C SHIVAKUMAR MAJOR

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

S/O B.M. CHANDRAMOULI SHETTY R/O BANAKANAHALLI VILLAGE BALLA POST, MULBAGAL TALUK.

¶14

THE GENERAL MANAGER

¶15

M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., 2ND FLOOR, J.P AND DEVIJAMBUKESHWAR ARCADE NO.69, MILLERS ROAD BENGALURU-560052

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. L SREEKANTA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 16.11.2023)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 27.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.273/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT AND

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:32248 MFA No. 5085 of 2019

¶20

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MULBAGAL, 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 H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.02.2019 passed by the MACT and Senior Civil Judge, Mulbagal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.273/2015.

¶25

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 01.05.2015 at about 5.45 p.m., when the claimant was proceeding in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-07/3693 on Mulbagal – Tayalur road near Khadripura Village Gate, at that time, a Mahindra Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.KA-07/A-3608 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:32248 MFA No. 5085 of 2019

¶27

negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶28

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act, seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent significant amount towards medical expenses, conveyance charges and other related costs. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶29

Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos. 1 and

¶30

2 appeared through counsel and filed written statements denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶31

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove the case, examined herself as PW-1, and Dr.Arun H.S. was examined as PW-2, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P28. On behalf of the respondents, neither any

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:32248 MFA No. 5085 of 2019

¶33

witness was examined nor got exhibited documents. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,23,400/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶34

The learned counsel for the claimant raised the following contentions:

¶35

(i) Firstly, the Tribunal erred in assuming the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.7,750/-, despite claiming that she earned Rs.9,000/- per month by working as a coolie.

¶36

(ii) Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. She was treated as inpatient for a period of 56 days. Even after discharge from the

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:32248 MFA No. 5085 of 2019

¶38

hospital, she was not in a position to discharge her regular work. She has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side.

¶39

With the above submissions, learned counsel for the appellant sought to allow the appeal.

¶40

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company raised the following countercontentions:

¶41

(i) Firstly, the assertion of the claimant that she was earning Rs.9,000/- per month, remains unsubstantiated due to lack of documentary evidence. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶42

(ii) Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature and she was inpatient for only 56

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:32248 MFA No. 5085 of 2019

¶44

days. Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are just and reasonable and it does not warrant interference.

¶45

With the above submissions, learned counsel for the Insurance Company sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal and the original records.

¶47

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 01.05.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶48

The claimant claims that she was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. But she has not produced any documents to substantiate her claim. Therefore, in the

¶49

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:32248 MFA No. 5085 of 2019

¶50

absence of proof of income, notional income has to be assessed. According to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year 2015, notional income shall be taken at Rs.9,000/- p.m.

¶51

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture of right ulna distal 1/3^rd and fracture of middle 1/3^rd Taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at 16%. The claimant was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to her age group is ‘15’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,59,200/- (Rs.9,0001215*16%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶52

The nature of injuries indicates that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of six months. Consequently, the claimant is entitled for

¶53

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:32248 MFA No. 5085 of 2019

¶54

compensation of Rs.54,000/- (Rs.9,000*6 months) under

¶55

the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶56

The claimant was hospitalized as an inpatient for more than 56 days in the hospital and subsequently received further treatment. Therefore, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded under the head of ‘conveyance’ from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5,000/-.

¶57

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. Considering the prolonged pain during treatment as well as the permanent disability certified by the doctor, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.

¶58

Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶59

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:32248 MFA No. 5085 of 2019

¶60

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

¶61

compensation:

¶62

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	60,000	60,000
Medical expenses	64,500	64,500
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	9,200	12,200
Loss of income during laid up period	46,500	54,000
Loss of amenities	20,000	40,000
Loss of future income	2,23,200	2,59,200
Total	4,23,400	4,89,900

¶63

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶66

(ii) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶67

10 -

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:32248 MFA No. 5085 of 2019

¶69

(iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of

¶70

Rs.4,89,900/- as against Rs.4,23,400/- awarded by the

¶71

Tribunal.

¶72

(iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶73

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶74

¶75

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64

Smt Yellamma v. Sri C Shivakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Yellamma v. Sri C Shivakumar

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

Smt. Nikhitha Vs Pruthvi S. Guptha

H Anand Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Thimmaiah Vs the Managing Director

Smt Gangamma Vs Aboobakkar

Siddamallappa Vs Gangadharappa

Naveena H R Vs Ramesh