Partly allowed

Abdul Kareem @ Kaleem v. C S Mamatha

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2024MFA/6349/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bengaluru, in a Miscellaneous First Appeal, partially allowed the appellant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in a motor vehicle accident case. The court assessed the percentage of disability, recalculated the loss of future earning capacity based on notional income and age, and enhanced award for loss of amenities, conveyance charges, and lost income during the laid-u

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced by Rs.3,45,450 along with 6% p.a. interest from date of petition till realization, excluding future medical expenses. Appeal dismissed as to interest for

Abdul Kareem @ Kaleem Vs C S Mamatha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:48942 MFA No. 6349 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6349 OF 2021(MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ABDUL KAREEM @ KALEEM, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O ABDUL JABBAR R/O BHEERAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE -572 216, IDAGUR POST, C.S. PURA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. PATEL D KARE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

C.S. MAMATHA, W/O JAGADEESHA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O NO.53, 3^RD CROSS, MUTTARAYAISWAMY EXTENSION, BENGALURU CITY -560 091

¶14

THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SHUBHASHRI MAHENDRA TOWERS, 2^ND FLOOR, 11^TH MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:48942 MFA No. 6349 of 2021

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.06.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.110/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT-17, GUBBI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

The present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 18.06.2019 in MVC.No.110/2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-17, at Gubbi seeking for enhancement of compensation.

¶23

The factum of accident, injuries sustained and fractures thereby suffered and liability of the Insurance Company are not in dispute.

¶24

Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:48942 MFA No. 6349 of 2021

¶26

The Tribunal has awarded the compensation under

¶27

various heads as follows:

¶28

Pain and sufferings	Rs. 25,000/-
Medical expenses	Rs.4,46,800/-
Attendant, food and nourishment charges	Rs. 7,000/-
Loss of Future income	Rs. 2,80,800/-
Compensation towards laid up period	Rs. 81,000/-
Future medical expenses	Rs. 50,000/-
Total	Rs.8,90,600/-

¶29

The Tribunal while determining the

¶30

compensation has not adopted the correct parameters. Hence, claimant is entitled for enhancement of

¶31

compensation.

¶32

From the medical evidence on record, it is proved that claimant has suffered old united fracture of femur with implant in situation, signs of osteomyelitis, sclerosis and cavity and old united fracture of upper 3^rd leg and features suggestive of osteomyelitis.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:48942 MFA No. 6349 of 2021

¶35

The compensation awarded under the head ‘Medical Expenses’ is as per the medical bills produced by

¶36

the claimant and the same is kept intact.

¶37

P.W.2- Doctor has stated that claimant has suffered grievous injuries leading to 77.33% permanent disability towards right lower limb and 25.77% to the whole body. The Tribunal has taken only 20% as a functional disability but considering the fact that claimant has suffered fracture of femur and old united fracture of upper 3^rd leg and features suggestive of osteomyelitis and the claimant is limping, therefore, functional disability would be considered as 25% towards whole body.

¶38

The Tribunal has taken monthly income at Rs.9,000/- only, but considering the fact that accident has occurred in the year 2017, notional income of Rs.11,000/p.m. is taken into consideration. Claimant was agriculturist and was also doing milk vending business, but due to disability, the claimant is not able to do the work as effectively as before the accident and therefore, his future

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:48942 MFA No. 6349 of 2021

¶40

prospects has hampered. Therefore, if 25% future prospects is added, the monthly income works out to Rs.13,750/- (Rs.11,000*25%=Rs,2,750). The claimant was aged 46 years as on the date of accident and hence, the appropriate multiplier applicable is '13'. Therefore, the loss of future earning capacity due to disability is calculated and quantified as follows:

¶41

Rs.13,750/- x 25% x 13 x 12 = Rs.5,36,250/-

¶42

The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,80,800/- towards loss of future income. A sum of Rs.5,36,250/- is awarded under the head loss of earning capacity due to disability.

¶43

The compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded under the head pain and sufferings is found to be correct, which needs no interference. Hence, it is kept intact.

¶44

The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities. Considering the nature of

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:48942 MFA No. 6349 of 2021

¶46

injuries and fractures suffered, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is

¶47

awarded under the head loss of amenities.

¶48

The compensation of Rs.7,000/- awarded under the head conveyance, nourishment, food and attendant charges is on the lesser side and the same is enhanced to

¶49

Rs.40,000/-.

¶50

The compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded under the head future medical expenses is found to be just and proper. Hence, it is kept in tact.

¶51

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.81,000/- under the head loss of earning during laid up period. By taking the notional income at Rs.11,000/- per month, compensation of Rs.88,000/- (Rs.11,000/- x 8 months) is awarded under the head loss of earning during laid up period.

¶52

The appellant/claimant is entitled to the compensation as follows:

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:48942 MFA No. 6349 of 2021

¶55

Pain and sufferings	Rs. 25,000/-	Kept in tact
Medical expenses	Rs. 4,46,800/-	Kept in tact
Conveyance, attendant and transportation charges	Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of future earning capacity due to disability	Rs. 5,36,250/-
Loss of amenities and unhappiness	Rs. 50,000/-
Loss of earning during laid down period	Rs. 88,000/-
(Rs.11,000/- x 8 months)
Future Surgery/medical expenses	Rs. 50,000/-	Kept in tact
Total	Rs.12,36,050/-

¶56

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.8,90,600/-, but the appellant/claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.12,36,050/- . Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.3,45,450/- (Rs.12,36,050/- - Rs.8,90,600/-) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:48942 MFA No. 6349 of 2021

¶59

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

(i) Appeal is allowed-in-part;

¶62

(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated *18.06.2019 passed in MVC.No.110/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT-17, at Gubbi, is modified to the extent that the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.3,45,450/- along with the rate of interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶63

(iii) The claimant is not entitled for any interest for the delayed period of 193 days in filing the appeal.

¶64

(iv) Further, interest shall be calculated excluding the amount awarded towards future medical expenses.

¶65

Draw award accordingly.

¶66

No order as to costs.

¶67

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶68

¶69

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10

¶70

Retyped and Replaced vide chamber order dated 20.02.2025

Abdul Kareem @ Kaleem v. C S Mamatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Kareem @ Kaleem v. C S Mamatha

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

Sri Jithendra Kumar Vs Sri Ansar R Varthik

M K Sanjay Vs H Nagesh

Kum Aishwarya Vs Sri Vivek S Hebbar

Mrs. Dolores L. a. Nazareth Vs B. Raju

Smt. Shoba Mallik @ Shobha Anil Vs the Managing Director

Sri Shivaraju Vs M/S N P Rahamathulla Khan