Partly allowed

Master Preetham K C v. the General Manager

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2024MFA/6639/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. Finding the Tribunal's award meager despite the minor's 20% whole-body disability and extensive injuries, the Court enhanced compensation by Rs. 2.50 lakhs globally, directing the insurer to deposit it with future instructions.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs. 2,50,000/-; interest at 6% p.a.; Respondent No.1 to deposit sum within six weeks.

Master Preetham K C Vs the General Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:19718-DB MFA No. 6639 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6639 OF 2022 (MV-I)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MASTER PREETHAM K C S/O CHANDRAPPA K N AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS NO.07, LIG-2 ARALIMARADAPALYA EXTENSION SIRA GATE, TUMKUR TOWN SINCE THE APPELLANT IS MINOR REP. BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. SARASWATHI H D W/O LAKE K N CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. C. ANANTHARAMA - ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE GENERAL MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE NO.9/2 2^ND FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

…APPELLANT

¶16

RAVIKUMAR BADAPPA GARI S/O GAVI RANGAPPA AGED MAJOR NO.101, DINNAMEDHAPUR MADAKASIRA MANDAL & POST ANANTHPUR, ANDRA PRADESH 515301.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:19718-DB MFA No. 6639 of 2022

¶18

SMT PAVITHRA W/O RAMKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT MAJOR R/AT THIGALARAHALLI CHIKKAMALURU GP KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR -572175.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. SANMATHI E I - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 06.04.2023 NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS NO. 2 & 3 DISPENSED WITH)

¶21

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 26.11.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 4243/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, PRL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION TO 50,00,000/- (RUPEES FIFTY LAKH ONLY) AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE PETITION.

¶22

THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA .J., DELIVERED THE

¶23

FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Heard Shri C. Anantharama, learned counsel for

¶26

the appellant as well as Shri E.I. Sanmathi who is representing Respondent No.1 / Insurance Company.

¶27

Disputing the validity of the order that is rendered

¶28

by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, in MVC

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:19718-DB MFA No. 6639 of 2022

¶30

No.4243/2019 dated 26.11.2021, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant.

¶31

The appellant who was aged about 10 years, met with a road traffic accident on 21.12.2018 and sustained grievous injuries, as per the material available on record. The version of the appellant is that he sustained grievous injuries due to the accident and he was administered with extensive treatment. Despite taking such treatment and undergoing surgery, he could not regain normality and that he became permanently disabled due to the injuries sustained.

¶32

Learned counsel Shri Anantharama C, making his submissions with regard to the merits of the matter, contends that the appellant underwent extensive medical treatment by admission into hospital twice and he incurred huge expenditure. Learned counsel states that due to the injuries sustained, the appellant became permanently disabled and the disability is 100% in nature in respect of the whole body. Learned counsel further submits that though the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:19718-DB MFA No. 6639 of 2022

¶34

taken was established before the Tribunal, the Tribunal as against the claim for Rs.50,00,000/-, awarded a sum of Rs.15,77,160/- as compensation, which is too meager. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement of compensation.

¶35

On the other hand, Shri E.I. Sanmathi, learned counsel who is representing the Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal awarded exorbitant amount as compensation and all the aspects of the case were taken into consideration and therefore, the award of the Tribunal needs no interference. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has even awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards ‘future medical expenses’.

¶36

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.15,77,160/-, which

¶37

is under the following heads:

¶38

Sl.No.	Head of Compensation	Amount
1.	Pain and Sufferings	Rs. 1,00,000-00
2.	Food and nourishment, attendant charges	Rs. 19,000-00

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:19718-DB MFA No. 6639 of 2022

¶40

3.	Medical Expenses	Rs. 8,50,760-00
4.	Loss of future earning capacity	Rs.3,02,400-00
5.	Loss of amenities	Rs. 50,000-00
6.	Loss of marriage prospects	Rs. 1,00,000-00
7.	Future medical expenses	Rs. 1,00,000-00
8.	Transportation charges	Rs. 5,000-00
	TOTAL	Rs.15,77,160-00

¶41

It is not in dispute that the appellant took treatment as in-patient from 21.12.2018 to 04.01.2019 and also from 21.01.2019 to 24.01.2019. Also, it is not in dispute that the appellant sustained polytrauma with right femur subtrochanteric fracture and right tibia fracture and degloving injury with exposure of anterior left knee. It is not in dispute also that the claimant underwent ORIF with DCP right femur and ex-fix application right tibia, debridement of degloved skin over left thigh and SSG & VAC application and also debridement of perianal wound

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:19718-DB MFA No. 6639 of 2022

¶43

with primary suturing, debridement of right foot and right leg and VAC application.

¶44

The observation of the Tribunal that the percentage of disability in respect of the whole body can be considered as 20%, needs no interference, as the observation is well-founded. However, having considered the fact that the appellant sustained grievous injuries due to the accident, took extensive treatment and having regard to the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal that the appellant requires further treatment in future and that the disability in respect of the whole body is 20%, this Court is of the view that the amount awarded as compensation under different heads, needs slight interference.

¶45

Having considered the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment taken, this Court is of the view that a sum of Rs.19,000/- awarded under the head ‘food and nourishment and attendant charges’, Rs.50,000/- awarded towards ‘loss of amenities in life’, Rs.5,000/- awarded towards ‘Transportation expenses’, are too meager. Also,

¶46

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:19718-DB MFA No. 6639 of 2022

¶47

having considered the nature of injuries sustained, this Court is of the view that the amount of pain and suffering that the appellant would have suffered cannot be equated in terms of money. Therefore, having considered the observations thus made, we are of the considered view that the amount awarded as compensation requires to be enhanced globally, by a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. Thus, for the foregoing discussion, the appeal is disposed of with the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i) The amount awarded as compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal through orders in MVC No.4243/2019 dated 26.11.2021 is enhanced by Rs.2,50,000/-.

¶50

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

¶51

iii) Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:19718-DB MFA No. 6639 of 2022

¶53

iv) On such deposit, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be

¶54

kept in a Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank in the name of the appellant, till he attains the age of majority. On attaining the age of majority, he is entitled to withdraw the said sum along with the accrued interest.

¶55

v) The remaining amount of Rs.50,000/be disbursed to the guardian of the appellant, in the light of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the said amount is required towards the appellant’s future medical expenses.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

Master Preetham K C v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Master Preetham K C v. the General Manager

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

Smt Chikkamma Since Dead by Her Lrs Smt. Lalithamma Vs the Special Land Acquisiton Officer

The Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited Vs M/S Acc Limited

Lalithamma Vs the General Manager

Sri Rajeeva K Vs Sri Bharath Gowda K M

Mansee Thard Vs the State of Karnataka

National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri Sri Jagadguru Shankaracharya