Partly allowed

B C Manjunath Deekshith v. M/S Cholamandalam General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2024MFA/6354/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the motor accident claimant's appeal partly. It set aside the Tribunal's finding of 10% contributory negligence due to lack of evidence and enhanced the compensation by adding awards for loss of amenities and loss of income during the lay-up period.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 16,30,944/- with interest at 6% p.a. from date of petition;

B C Manjunath Deekshith Vs M/S Cholamandalam General… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:24775 MFA No. 6354 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6354 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

B. C. MANJUNATH DEEKSHITH @ MANJUNATHA SWAMY, S/O CHANDRA DEEKSHITH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O BYRAKUR VILLAGE AND POST, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K T., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶8

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MOTOR CLAIMS HUB, UNIT NO.04, 9^TH FLOOR, LEVEL – 06, GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, 4^TH M BLOCK, 59^TH C BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. BY ITS MANAGER.

¶10

MR. N. RAJENDRA PRASAD, S/O NARAYANA REDDY, WARD NO.8, LAVANYA FILLING STATION, HANUMANAPALYA, MULBAGAL ROAD, SRINIVASAPURA TOWN, KOLAR - 563 135. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶11

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:24775 MFA No. 6354 of 2018

¶12

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1569/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-19), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶13

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

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 17.03.2018 in MVC No.1569/2017 passed by the learned MACT and XV Addl. Judge SCCH-19, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.

¶16

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, seeking just and proper compensation, stating that on 13.05.2015, while he was riding a motorcycle, a tanker lorry driven in a rash and negligent manner collided with his motorcycle. As a result, the claimant fell and sustained grievous injuries. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record and attributing 10% contributory negligence to the claimant, awarded a total compensation of Rs.15,06,200/-.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the Trial Court records.

¶18

The fact that the claimant sustained accidental injuries on 13.05.2015 is not in dispute, and the claimant was 37 years old on the date of the accident. The police, after investigation,

¶19

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:24775 MFA No. 6354 of 2018

¶20

submitted a charge sheet against the driver of the tanker lorry without attributing any negligence to the claimant. The Tribunal attributed negligence to the claimant solely because the rough sketch of the accident was not produced. However, there was no suggestion that the claimant was negligent or contributed to the accident. In the absence of evidence indicating that the claimant contributed to the accident, the Tribunal's finding that the claimant was 10% contributorially negligent is not legally sustainable.

¶21

The compensation amount awarded for the loss of future income is just and proper. The claimant sustained a clavicle fracture on the right side, a bimalleolar fracture, toe and finger crush injuries on the right side, a right brachial plexus injury (Infraclavicular type), and right shoulder loss of ER. The functional disability of the claimant was assessed at 25%, which is just and proper.

¶22

Given the nature of the injuries and the fact that the claimant was an in-patient for 29 days, the awarded compensation is appropriate., the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reassessed as follows:

¶23

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	10,48,944	10,48,944
Nourishment, food, conveyance and attendant charges	13,000	30,000
Towards loss of future income due to permanent disability	4,05,000	4,05,000

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:24775 MFA No. 6354 of 2018

¶26

Towards future medical	20,000	20,000
expenses
Loss of amenities	-	40,000
Loss of income during laid up period	-	27,000
Total	15,56,944	16,30,944

¶27

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of

¶28

Rs.16,30944/- as opposed to Rs.15,56,944/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.

¶29

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part and the

¶30

judgment and award of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

RKA

B C Manjunath Deekshith v. M/S Cholamandalam General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B C Manjunath Deekshith v. M/S Cholamandalam General Insurance Co.Ltd.

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

Nayan Sarkar Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Siddamari D Vs Imran Pasha

E S Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. K. S. Srijith Vs Mr. Lokesha

The Divisional Manager Vs Yashavanthachari

The Karnataka State Jewelry Traders Vs State of Karnataka