Partly allowed

Mr.Gangadhara H.B. v. the Manager

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2024MFA/6842/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured in a road accident appealed for enhancement of compensation, contending the Tribunal wrongly fixed notional income at Rs.10,000/- per month and under-awarded on several heads. Court took notional income as Rs.12,500/- per month with 40% future prospects, multiplier 16, and enhanced compensation.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs.2,91,000/- with 6% interest from date of petition till deposit; insurer directed to deposit within eight weeks.

Mr.Gangadhara H.B. Vs the Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36594 MFA No. 6842 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6842 OF 2021(MV-I)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MR. GANGADHARA H.B. S/O. BETTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT HURALIGERE, YADIYUR HOBLI, NAGASANDRA, TUMAKURU.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., 2^ND FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, M. G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 01.

¶12

ZOOM CAR INDIA PVT LTD., 7^TH FLOOR, TOWER 'B', DIAMOND DISTRICT, HAL, AIRORT ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 008.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAMA RAO AND SRI. B. C. SEETHARAMA RAO FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH, V/O. DATED 03.03.2023)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36594 MFA No. 6842 of 2021

¶16

THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 5364/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, PRL. MACT, BENGALURU CITY, (SCCH-1), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

Heard Sri.Shripad V. Shastri, learned counsel for the appellant who appears through video conference. Also heard Sri.Anup Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1 who also appears through video conference.

¶21

Challenge in this appeal is the order that is rendered by the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, in MVC No.5364/2018 dated 20.04.2021. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.17,18,500/- as compensation and being not satisfied with the said sum that is awarded as compensation, the claimant is before this Court.

¶22

Arguing the matter Sri.Shripad V. Shastri submits that the appellant sustained grievous injuries due to the

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36594 MFA No. 6842 of 2021

¶24

accident and became disabled both physically and neurologically. Though through the evidence of PW2 the physical disability was established and though through the evidence of PW3 the neurological disability was established, the Tribunal did not award justified sum as compensation and therefore this appeal is filed. Bringing to the notice of this Court the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, learned counsel seeks for enhancement of compensation.

¶25

Learned counsel also submits that the appellant by working in a private firm was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, however, the Tribunal took the notional income of the appellant as Rs.10,000/- per month, which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel also contends that the accident occurred in the year 2018 and for the relevant period even the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income as Rs.12,500/- per month and at-least the said figure should have been considered by the Tribunal.

¶26

Sri.Anup Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for

¶27

respondent No.1 did not deny the submission that is made by Sri.Shripad V. Shastri regarding the notional income to be

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36594 MFA No. 6842 of 2021

¶29

taken at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per month. However, learned counsel contends that the amount awarded as compensation under all other heads is justifiable.

¶30

The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded

¶31

a sum of Rs.17,18,500/- as compensation divided under

¶32

following heads:

¶33

Sl. No.	Head of compensation	Amount in Rs.
1	Pain and sufferings	60,000-00
2	Medical expenses	10,70,404-00
3	Food and nourishment, conveyance, attendant charges and other incidental expenses	50,000-00
4	Loss of income during laid up period	1,40,000-00
5	Loss of future earning due to permanent disability	2,88,000-00
6	Loss of amenities	40,000-00
7	Future medical expenses	70,000-00
	Total	17,18,404-00
and	the same is rounded off to	17,18,500-00

¶34

It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained fracture of both bones of left leg i.e. tibia and fibula, fractures of 2^nd , 3^rd , 4^th and 5^th metatarsal of left foot and also a head injury. Equally it is not in dispute that interlocking nailing of left tibia was done, plating of left lateral malleolus was done and

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36594 MFA No. 6842 of 2021

¶36

multiple K wiring of left foot was also done. The evidence of PW3 is that the appellant was admitted at Hosmat Hospital on 23.06.2018 and he was managed conservatively for the head injury, he was on ventilator for some time, tracheostomy was done to help in breathing, there was intensive monitoring and he was discharged on 30.07.2018. He also deposed that the appellant again got admitted at the same hospital on 18.03.2019 and bone grafting, fibulectomy and dynamisation was done and he was discharged on 21.03.2019. He was again admitted at the same hospital on 18.05.2019 and conservative treatment for infection was done and was discharged on 20.05.2019. He also deposed that the appellant took further treatment at Sanjay Gandhi hospital where ring fixation was done. The evidence thus produced reveals that he sustained grievous injuries due to the accident and took extensive treatment.

¶37

Taking into consideration the evidence of PW2 with regard to functional disability and the evidence of PW3 with regard to neurological disability and further making an observation that the appellant appeared before the Court, gave evidence as PW1 and stood to the test of cross-examination,

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:36594 MFA No. 6842 of 2021

¶39

the Tribunal assessed and took the disability in respect of whole body as 15%. The said observation needs no interference.

¶40

Admittedly, the appellant has not produced any substantive proof with regard to his actual occupation and earnings by the date of accident. However, both the learned counsel sought for taking the notional income as Rs.12,500/per month, which is justifiable. Thus, taking the notional income as Rs.12,500/- per month, the appellant being aged about 31 years by the date of accident, adding 40% towards future prospects and applying appropriate multiplier '16', loss of future earnings due to permanent physical disability is as under:

¶41

Description	Amount in Rs.
Notional income per month	12,500-00
Annual income (12,500 x 12)	1,50,000-00
Add 40% towards future prospects(1,50,000+40%)	2,10,000-00
Applying the appropriate multiplier '16'(2,10,000 x16)	33,60,000-00
Permanent physical disability being 15%	5,04.000-00
Loss of future earnings due to permanent physical disability	5,04,000-00

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:36594 MFA No. 6842 of 2021

¶44

The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.2,88,000/- only towards loss of future earnings. Thus, the enhancement on that count would be Rs.2,16,000/(Rs.5,04,000/- - Rs.2,88,000/-).

¶45

Having considered the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment taken, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- only under the head pain and suffering. Thus, the enhancement would be Rs.40,000/(Rs.1,00,000/- - Rs.60,000/-).

¶46

Taking the notional income as Rs.10,000/- per month, observing the fact that the appellant would not have attended is normal work at-least for a period of one year two months i.e. fourteen months, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as compensation towards loss of earnings during laid up period. However, taking the notional income as Rs.12,500/- per month, the loss of earnings during laid up period comes to Rs.1,75,000/- (Rs.12,500/- x 14). As earlier stated, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.140,000/- only under

¶47

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:36594 MFA No. 6842 of 2021

¶48

the head loss of earnings during laid up period. Thus, the enhancement would be Rs.35,000/(Rs.1,75,000/- - Rs.1,40,000/-). Thus, the total compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive in addition to the compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.2,91,000/- (Rs.2,16,000/-

¶49

Rs.40,000/- + 35,000/-).

¶50

In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is disposed of with the following

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶53

ii) The compensation that is awarded by the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, through orders in MVC No.5364/2018 dated 20.04.2021 is enhanced by Rs.2,91,000/-.

¶54

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

¶55

iv) The first respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:36594 MFA No. 6842 of 2021

¶57

¶58

v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to

¶59

withdraw the entire amount.

¶60

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶61

AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Mr.Gangadhara H.B. v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Gangadhara H.B. v. the Manager

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 Madhushree K Vs the Assistant Manager

Susheela @ Susheelamma Vs K P Rajashekar

Thangyamma Vs Anil H.M

Vinodkumar T G @ Vinod Naik Vs P Suresh Kumar

Smt Bhagyalakshmi Vs the Manager, Iffco-Tokio General

Smt Shivamma Vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.