Partly allowed

Sri Rudresh v. Sri Annappa B

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2024MFA/6368/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for fractures to both legs sustained in a bus-auto rickshaw collision. The High Court reassessed notional monthly income at Rs.8,500, added loss of income during laid-up period, and enhanced total compensation to Rs.6,89,500 with interest on the enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.6,89,500 (enhancement of Rs.1,60,500 at 6% p.a. interest); insurer directed to deposit before Tribunal within six weeks.

Sri Rudresh Vs Sri Annappa B — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:33704 MFA No. 6368 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6368 / 2017 (MV-I)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SRI RUDRESH, S/O RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE COOLIE, NOW R/A C/O K.T. RAMAPPA GOWDA, S/O PATEL THIMAPPA GOWDA, HAIHOLE AGALLI VILLAGE, SHIMOGA TALUKA, PERMANENTLY R/A MUTTIGE VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

¶6

…APPELLANT

¶7

(BY SRI RAMACHANDRA RAMA NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

SRI ANNAPPA B., S/O BANGARAPPA, R/AT SALUR VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

¶10

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SRI GANESHA VASANTHA POKLE, S/O VASANTHA POKLE, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT ANANDAPURA VILLAGE, SAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGA DISRICT. PERMANENTLY R/A SRIDHARA KRUPA, SANTHEKATTE, UDUPI TOWN, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶12

THE SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SEETHAPURA JAIPAURA, RAJASTHAN, RAJASTHAN STATE, BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ANUP SETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (VC); NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS D/W V/O DATED 22.8.2024]

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:33704 MFA No. 6368 of 2017

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.797/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & MACT-VI, SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

Challenging judgment and award dated 15.12.2016

¶21

passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge & MACT-VI, Shivamogga, in MVC no.797/2014, this appeal is filed.

¶22

Sri Ramachandra Rama Naik, learned counsel for appellant submitted, appeal is by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted, on 14.04.2014 at about 7:30 PM when claimant along with co-workers was traveling in an autorikshaw to go to Ripponpet, near Bhuthappanagudi, bus bearing no.KA-18-AA-7799 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, dashed against claimant’s Autorikshaw. Due to accident, claimant sustained fracture of his right and left legs etc. After accident he was shifted to Mc.Gann hospital, Shivamogga initially and later took treatment at Parvathi

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:33704 MFA No. 6368 of 2017

¶25

Nursing Home, Shivamogga. Despite treatment, he did not recover fully and sustained permanent physical disability. Due to same, he had lost earning capacity. Claiming compensation, he had filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'M.V.Act'), against owner and insurer of offending bus.

¶26

On service of notice, respondents no.1 and 2 did not appear and were placed ex-parte . Insurer opposed claim petition by denying entire claim petition averments and alleged violation of terms and conditions by driver of insured vehicle.

¶27

Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence, wherein claimant examined himself as PW1 and Dr.B.C.Varad as PW.2. Exs.P.1 to P.14 were got marked. On behalf of insurer, copy of insurance policy was got marked with consent.

¶28

On consideration, tribunal answered issues no.1 and 3 in affirmative, issue no.2 in negative and issue no.4 by allowing claim petition in part determining compensation at Rs.5,29,000/- with interest at 9% per annum and holding respondent no.3 - insurer is liable to pay same. Not satisfied with quantum of compensation, claimant is in appeal.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:33704 MFA No. 6368 of 2017

¶31

It was submitted though claimant had stated that his monthly income as on date of accident was Rs.15,000/-, tribunal without any justification had taken it at Rs.6,000/- and same was inadequate. It was submitted Tribunal had not awarded any compensation towards loss of income during laid up period. It was submitted even compensation awarded under other heads were inadequate and sought for enhancement.

¶32

On other hand, Sri Anup Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for respondent no.3 - insurer sought to oppose appeal. It was submitted considering nature of injuries and disability suffered, tribunal had assessed functional disability on higher side and even rate of interest awarded at 9% was excessive and would offset any scope for enhancement. It was submitted compensation awarded under other heads was just and proper and on over all consideration there was no scope for enhancement.

¶33

Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award.

¶34

From above and since claimant is in appeal for enhancement, point that would arise for consideration is:

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:33704 MFA No. 6368 of 2017

¶37

"Whether claimant is entitled for compensation as sought for?"

¶38

From above, occurrence of accident on 14.04.2014 involving insured vehicle due to rash and negligent driving by bus driver, claimant sustaining injuries and consequent permanent physical disability are not in dispute. While claimant is in appeal for enhancement. Insurer has not questioned same.

¶39

As noted above, as on date of accident claimant was aged 23 years and working as coolie. Though he claimed that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. There was no material placed on record to substantiate same. In absence of specific evidence, tribunal would be justified in assessing it notionally. Notional income for 2014 being Rs.8,500/-, tribunal was not justified in taking it at Rs.6,000/- per month. Same has to be considered at Rs.8,500/- per month. Claimant has sustained fracture of shaft right femur with shaft mid 3^rd left tibia and fibula. Ex.P.8-discharge summary would indicate claimant having taken inpatient treatment for 12 days and subjected to surgery for removal of implant. Records would also show that claimant has taken outpatient treatment even during 2016. Considering same, award of Rs.75,000/- towards

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:33704 MFA No. 6368 of 2017

¶42

'pain and suffering' by tribunal would not appear to be inadequate or grossly insufficient. Same would not call for interference.

¶43

Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses against bills produced. As same is in complete reimbursement, there would be no scope for enhancement. Taking note of duration of inpatient and out-patient treatments, award of Rs.30,000/- towards conveyance, attendant, food and nourishment, would appear to be just and proper and does not call for interference.

¶44

Even award of Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of amenities' and Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses, taking note of injury sustained and for implants, which would also appear to be just and proper and does not call for interference. Insofar as 'loss of future income', since monthly income of claimant is re-assessed at Rs.8,500/-, same would be:

¶45

Rs.8,500X25%X12X18=Rs.4,59,000/-

¶46

Claimant had sustained fractures. Normally, fractures take about three months to heal. Taking same as

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:33704 MFA No. 6368 of 2017

¶49

period of lay off, claimant would be entitled for award of Rs.25,500/- towards loss of income during laid up period. Thus, claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.6,89,500/-. Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative. Consequently, following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) Appeal is allowed in part;

¶52

(ii) Claimant is held entitled for total compensation of Rs.6,89,500/- as against Rs.5,29,000/- awarded by tribunal;

¶53

(iii) Enhanced compensation of Rs.1,60,500/- shall carry interest at 6% p.a., from date of petition till realization;

¶54

(iv) Insurer is directed to deposit enhanced compensation before Tribunal within six weeks; and

¶55

(v) Upon deposit said amount shall be released to claimant.

¶56

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶57

PSG

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Sri Rudresh v. Sri Annappa B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rudresh v. Sri Annappa B

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 Vijayalakshmi Vs Sri v Lakshminarayana

Smt Bhavya K Vs Sri Madhusudan M Krishnamurthy

Smt Bylamma Vs Sri Hanumantharaju

Sri Raju Vs United India Insurance Co., Ltd.

Sri. P v Balaji Ganes Vs Sri. a G Munivenkata Gowda

Sri. Venkataramanappa Vs Sri. Kiran. S