Partly allowed

Sri. Rajesha v. Mahesha P

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2024MFA/5928/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka in a miscellaneous first appeal partly allowed the appeal, enhancing compensation from Rs. 1,31,851 to Rs. 1,69,551. The court increased awards for conveyance/medical expenses and loss of income, while maintaining amounts for pain and suffering and amenities.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,69,551 with interest at 6% per annum; designed to be realized after deposit by the insurance company.

Sri. Rajesha Vs Mahesha P — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10388 MFA No. 5928 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5928 OF 2019

¶6

(MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. RAJESHA S/O THAMMANNA, RESIDING AT ELECHAKANAHALLY VILLAGE, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571402

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. DILEEP N.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MAHESHA P S/O SRI. PUTTEGOWDA, R/O TUBINAKERE VILLAGE, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571402

¶14

THE MANAGER (LEGAL) ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD., OFFICE AT NO.132, 2ND FLOOR, MANGALYA, BRIGADE ROAD, BENGALURU-560025

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPROTHI.,ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 - SERVED AND UNREPRESNETED)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED15.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.191/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10388 MFA No. 5928 of 2019

¶19

CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MANDYA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The present appeal is filed aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.191/2011 dated 15.09.2016 by the MACT, Mandya, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶23

The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of

¶24

an amount of Rs.11,90,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. According to the claimant, he is 22 years old, he is an agriculturist and a milk vendor and used to earn an amount of Rs.12,000/- p.m. As per the wound certificate he had sustained fracture of both bones of right leg and sustained other injuries. The first injury is the grievous injury and he has spent huge amounts for the treatment. The claimant has not examined the doctor, basing on the evidence, the court

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10388 MFA No. 5928 of 2019

¶26

below has granted the compensation as per the table

¶27

given below:

¶28

	Heads		Co	mpensation Awarded
1.	Pain and Sufferings	:	Rs.	70,000/-
2.	Medical Expenses	:	Rs.	13,551/-
3.	Conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges	:	Rs.	3,300/-
4.	Loss of income during the laid up period	:	Rs.	15,000/-
5.	Discomfort, inconvenience and loss of future amenities	:	Rs.	30,000/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	1,31,851/-

¶29

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that

¶30

when the claimant had sustained fracture to both bones of right leg, the compensation that was awarded by the court below is not just and reasonable. Learned counsel submits that in the light of law laid down in Mukund Dewangan Vs- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,¹ still the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimant, the

¶31

1 (2017) 14 SCC 663

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10388 MFA No. 5928 of 2019

¶33

issue regarding having license to drive a LMV (NonTransport) and driving a LMV transport, the said issue is more res-integra . The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan Case referred supra has laid down the law, and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. It is submitted that compensation awarded under the other heads also is not just and reasonable.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the court below had held that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, but the driver of the offending vehicle was having license to drive the LMV (Non-Transport), but he was driving an auto which is a transport vehicle. As such it is held that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy and the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. He also submits that basing on the evidence available on record, Court below had rightly

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10388 MFA No. 5928 of 2019

¶36

granted the compensation and no grounds are made out

¶37

for enhancement of the compensation.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The court below under the head of pain & suffering and medical expenses , considering the evidence on record had rightly granted the compensation at Rs.70,000/and Rs.13,551/- respectively. Then coming to the conveyance, nourishment and other incidental

¶39

charges are concerned, he was in hospital for 22 days, the court below had granted only an amount of Rs.3,300/, this court is granting an amount of Rs.20,000/- under the said head. Then coming to the loss of income during the laid up period , no evidence is let in with regard to the income. Considering the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, as this is an accident of the year 2011, this court is taking Rs.6,500/as income, for four months he is entitled for an amount of

¶40

Rs.26,000/-. The court below under the head of loss of

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10388 MFA No. 5928 of 2019

¶42

amenities had granted an amount of Rs.30,000/- and this

¶43

court finds no reasons to interfere.

¶44

In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble

¶45

Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M.

¶46

MALATHI AND ANOTHER² , the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Legal Expenses .

¶47

The claimant is therefore, entitled to the

¶48

compensation under the following heads:

¶49

	Heads		Co A	mpensation warded by Tribunal	Compensation Awarded by this Court
1.	Pain and Sufferings	:	Rs.	70,000/-	70,000/-
2.	Medical Expenses	:	Rs.	13,551/-	13,551/-
3.	Conveyance, nursing care, nourishment and towards other incidental expenses	:	Rs.	3,3300/-	20,000/-
4.	Loss of income during the laid up period	:	Rs.	15,000/-	26,000/-
5.	Loss of amenities	:	Rs.	00/-	30,000/-

¶50

2 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:10388 MFA No. 5928 of 2019

¶53

6.	Legal Expenses	:	Rs.	00/-	10,000/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	1,31,851/-	1,69,551/-
	Enhancement	:	Rs.	37,7	00/-

¶54

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is

¶55

partly allowed , enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.1,31,851/- to Rs.1,69,551/- and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i) The Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.1,31,851/- to Rs.1,69,551/-. The Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

¶58

ii) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶59

iii) The respondent - insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is

¶60

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:10388 MFA No. 5928 of 2019

¶61

entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

¶62

iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶63

v) On 01.09.2022, the delay of 947 days is condoned by this court, on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest, in case of enhancement. Hence, Insurance company is not liable to pay the interest for the delay period.

¶64

vi) No costs.

¶65

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶66

SD/JUDGE

¶67

TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Sri. Rajesha v. Mahesha P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Rajesha v. Mahesha P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hussain Sab Since Dead by His Lrs Vs Sri Halleppa

Mr. Samarth Vimaljagnani Vs Mrs. Arzoo Samarth Jagnani

Kiran Kumar Bandari Vs Dr. Reena Sinha

Sri Lathesh D Vs Smt B R Shewtha

Sri. Puttaswamy Vs Sri. Siddalingaiah

Smt Kruthi Krishna Vs Mr Keerthi Kumar S