Partly allowed

Jithendra v. Keshavamurthy. K. R.

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2024MFA/5597/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant sought enhancement of motor accident compensation for grievous tibia-fibula fracture causing 10% whole-body disability. Court upheld tribunal's disability assessment and notional income but added 40% future prospects per Pranay Sethi, enhancing loss of future earnings, pain and suffering, and laid-up period income.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs.1,44,960/- with 6% p.a. interest (excluding 325 days delay), payable by respondent No.2 within eight weeks.

Jithendra Vs Keshavamurthy. K. R. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38074 MFA No. 5597 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5597 OF 2023(MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

JITHENDRA S/O. KESHAVAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT KIRISAVE VILLAGE, HIRISAVE HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATTANA, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. KAILAS SHANKAR P.S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

KESHAVAMURTHY K.R., S/O. RAMEGOWDA, MAJOR, NO. 347, HONNADEVIHALLI VILLAGE, KADABAHALLI POST, BINDIGANAVELE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶13

THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.5^TH AND 6^TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:38074 MFA No. 5597 of 2023

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. K. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 D/W, V/O DATED: 18.08.2023)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.06.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 7352/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (SCCH.13) PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Heard Sri.Kailash Shankar P.S, learned counsel for the appellant who appears physically before this Court. Also heard Sri.K.Suresh learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company, who appears through video conference.

¶23

The claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation challenging the order that is rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in M.V.C. No.7352/2019 dated 06.06.2022.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38074 MFA No. 5597 of 2023

¶25

As against the claim for Rs.15,00,000/- in total, the tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.6,76,100/- as compensation and aggrieved by the same this appeal is filed.

¶26

Sri.Kailash Shankar P.S learned counsel for the appellant, arguing the matter, contends that the appellant as Milk vendor was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by the date of accident. However, due to the injuries sustained, he became totally and permanently disabled. Learned counsel submits that though PW-2 who treated the appellant gave evidence to the effect that the disability is 36.75%, the tribunal took the permanent disability as 10% which is unjustifiable.

¶27

Learned counsel also contends that the amount awarded as compensation under all other heads is also grossly low. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement of compensation.

¶28

Opposing the submission thus made, Sri.K.Suresh learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that the

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38074 MFA No. 5597 of 2023

¶30

tribunal, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded a justifiable sum as compensation. Learned counsel however contends that there may be marginal enhancement.

¶31

It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained Type III A compound fracture of left tibia and fibula which is grievous in nature. By the evidence of PW-2 it is clear that the appellant initially underwent surgery with IM interlocking and thereafter underwent another surgery to cover the wound. PW-2 also stated that the appellant was admitted for the 2^nd time at hospital for dynamisation. By the evidence of PW-2 it is further clear that the fracture is mal united and the movements of ankle and knee are restricted.

¶32

However, this Court is not inclined to disturb the findings of the tribunal that the disability in respect of whole body is 10% as the said assessment is on properlines. Also this Court is not inclined to interfere with the notional income taken by the tribunal for assessment

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38074 MFA No. 5597 of 2023

¶34

of compensation as Rs.14,000/- per month. However, the tribunal did not add future prospects. The appellant being aged about 19 years by the date of accident, 40% of the actual earnings are required to be added towards future prospects as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 case.

¶35

Thus, without disturbing the other parameters, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to under the

¶36

head loss of future earnings due to permanent physical

¶37

disability is as under:-

¶38

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Notional income	14,000-00
Annual income	1,68,000-00
Add 40% towards future prospects	2,35,200-00
Apply appropriate multiplier '18'	42,33,600-00
Loss of future earnings, the permanent physical disability being 10%	4,23,360-00

¶39

10.Thus, loss of future earnings due to the permanent physical disability comes to Rs.4,23,360/-.

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38074 MFA No. 5597 of 2023

¶41

However, the tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.3,02,400/- only towards loss of future earnings. Thus, the enhancement will be Rs.1,20,960/- (4,23,360-3,02,400/-). Also this Court is of the view that the amount awarded under the head pain and suffering is required to be enhanced by Rs.10,000/-. Further, having considered the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment taken, this Court is of the view that the appellant would not have attended his normal pursuits atleast for a period of four months. Thus, loss of income during laid up period comes to Rs.56,000/- However, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.42,000/- under the said head. Thus, the enhancement will be Rs.14,000/-(56,00042,000). Thus the total compensation which the appellant is entitled to in addition to the sum that is awarded by the tribunal is Rs.1,44,960/-. (Rs.1,20,960+10,000+14,000).

¶42

Thus, the appeal is disposed with the following

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:38074 MFA No. 5597 of 2023

¶46

ii. The compensation that is awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru through orders in M.V.C. No.7352/2019 dated 06.06.2022 is enhanced by Rs.1,44,960/-.

¶47

iii. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit except for the period of delay of 325 days as per orders in IA No.1/2023.

¶48

iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶49

v. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

¶50

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶51

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60

Jithendra v. Keshavamurthy. K. R.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jithendra v. Keshavamurthy. K. R.

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

Sri.Sriram Vs the Managing Director

Suhas N Vs Rakesh H R

Sri. M. Narayanappa Vs M. Manjunath

Sannakariyappa Vs Rajanna

Smt Nagamma Vs Shri R Srinivas

Shanthabai @ Sahanthavva Goundi Vs M P Karthikeyan