Partly allowed

Sri Cherian C.T. v. the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2024MFA/6864/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident compensation appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.8,00,000/- to Rs.10,35,400/-. The court considered the appellant's injuries, loss of amenities, future medical expenses, and added compensation for loss of future income based on a 20% whole body disability assessment.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.2,35,400/- awarded to the appellant, to be deposited by the insurance company with accrued interest within eight weeks.

Sri Cherian C.T. Vs the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance… — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:30650 MFA No. 6864 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA MFA NO. 6864 OF 2013 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI CHERIAN C.T. S/O LATE C S THOMAS AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT CHIRAMEL NO.14 P/21, KRC ROAD DODDAGUBBI POST BANGALORE-560 077 …APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADV.)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. MANGALYA PUNARBHAV 2^ND FLOOR, 132, BRIGADE ROAD BANGALORE, BY ITS MANAGER

¶11

Digitally signed by PRAJWAL A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT DEVI J. W/O JEEVAN R, NO.50, WARD 28 ANNA NAGAR, 7^TH STREET THIRUVANNAMALAI-606 601 …RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADV. FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 9.12.2014; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶14

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 8.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2512/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL. JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT,-V, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, (SCCH.NO.5), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:30650 MFA No. 6864 of 2013

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

In this appeal, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and award dated 08.11.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.2512/2020 by the MACT-V, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

¶21

For the sake of convenience, the rank of the

¶22

parties will be referred to as per the status before the Tribunal.

¶23

Brief facts of the case are, on 25.01.2011 at 5.00 a.m., while the petitioner was traveling in a car bearing Reg.No.KA-50/M-5214 near Biocon U turn, Hebbagodi, Bangalore, a Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN.25/M-6565 dashed against the car. Due to which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries to his right leg. He was treated at Hosmat Hospital and Chaya Hospital, Bangalore, under hospitalization. The

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:30650 MFA No. 6864 of 2013

¶26

petitioner was an Ex-servicemen and Civil Engineer. He approached the Tribunal seeking grant of compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. The claim was opposed by the insurer of the Lorry. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, allowed the claim petition granting Rs.8,00,000/- with 6% interest. Pleading inadequacy and seeking enhancement of compensation, the petitioner has filed this appeal on various grounds.

¶27

Heard Sri Shripad V. Shastri, learned

¶28

counsel for petitioner and Sri Ravi S. Samprathi, learned counsel for insurance company.

¶29

It is contended by of the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner being a Civil Engineer, served the nation as soldier and after his retirement he was doing civil contract work and earning money apart from his pension. Pension is a meager one and he has to eckout his livelihood independently and to that extent, he has produced Agreement for having

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:30650 MFA No. 6864 of 2013

¶32

engaged in the construction work. There is a fracture and dislocation of the right knee, he was under hospitalization for more than 36 days. The petitioner was under external fixator for a period of 3 months, in spite of multiple surgery he was unable to recover. He has suffered loss of sensation, inability to squat and injuries made him to suffer lot. The Tribunal has not considered these aspects and the compensation assessed is on lower side. No compensation is assessed towards incidental charges and loss of future income and sought for enhancement.

¶33

Per contra , learned counsel for insurance

¶34

company has contended that the petitioner being an ex-servicemen is drawing the pension, there is no proof that after his retirement he is doing civil contract work. There is no loss of future income on account of the accident. PW.2-Dr.Deepu, is the Plastic Surgeon, who has deposed that the petitioner is a diabetic patient and because of diabetic, the injuries have

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:30650 MFA No. 6864 of 2013

¶37

aggravated and not on account of the accident. For these reasons, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation and since the petitioner is a pensioner, has not considered his loss of future income and he has supported the impugned judgment.

¶38

I gave anxious consideration to the

¶39

arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶40

The accident in question is not in dispute. The medical records pointed out that the petitioner has sustained injuries and he being the victim of an accident, entitled to claim compensation.

¶41

The Tribunal assessed the compensation as

¶42

follows:

¶43

Sl.No.	Particulars	Rs.
1.	Towards pain and suffering	Rs. 50,000/-
2.	Towards medical expenses	Rs.6,75,000/-
3.	Towards loss of income during treatment period	Rs. 30,000/-
4.	Towards loss of amenities and unhappiness	Rs. 35,000/-
5	Towards future medical expenses	Rs. 10,000/-
	Total	Rs.8,00,000/-

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:30650 MFA No. 6864 of 2013

¶46

10. Wound certificate and the hospital records

¶47

show that there is a dislocation and fracture of right

¶48

knee joint and also mandible fracture. The petitioner was under hospitalization for three times; first time from 25.01.2011 till 07.02.2011 for 12 days, second time from 13.02.2011 till 05.03.2011 for 22 days and third time from 07.09.2011 to 08.09.2011 for 2 days, in all for 36 days, during which he has spent money towards attendant, food and nourishment as well as traveling. Medical bills constitutes a sum of Rs.7,23,732/-, out of which, portion of the bills have been paid and have been cancelled. The Tribunal, considering the same, has rightly assessed the medical expenses at Rs.6,50,000/-.

¶49

The petitioner being not only an exservicemen, also a Civil Engineer, and earning handsome amount and he is receiving pension of Rs.5,500/- per month, out of which he cannot sustain

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:30650 MFA No. 6864 of 2013

¶52

his livelihood independently and he has to work for livelihood. Evidence spoken to by PW.2-Dr.Deepu, Plastic surgeon, having regard to the facts and circumstances, it may not be possible to accept 55.8% of whole body disability. The petitioner was doing supervisory work in construction, loss of supervision could be assessed at Rs.8,000/-. For lower limb disability will be generally considered at 25% of the whole body whereas the petitioner has sustained 55.8% of disability as spoken by the Doctor, which can be assessed at 20% to the whole body. Accordingly he has to be compensated for loss of future income.

¶53

Compensation awarded by the tribunal towards pain and sufferings and loss of amenities is inadequate. The Doctor has assessed future medical expenses at Rs.50,000/- and in the absence of proper proof, it can be treated at Rs.25,000/-. Keeping all these aspects into consideration, Rs.60,000/is assessed towards pain and sufferings, towards medical

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:30650 MFA No. 6864 of 2013

¶56

expenses at Rs.6,50,000/-, towards loss of income during laid up period at Rs.48,000/- (Rs.8,000/- x 6 months), towards loss of amenities and discomfort at Rs.75,000/-, future medical expenses at Rs.25,000/-, towards attendant charges at Rs.8,000/- for 36 days, towards traveling expenses at Rs.10,000/- and towards food and nourishment at Rs.25,000/-.

¶57

As regarding loss of future income, as discussed above, he has suffered 20% of whole body disability and Rs.8,000/- towards loss of supervision. As on the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 62 years and multiplier applicable is '7'. Hence, loss of income due to disability will be Rs.8,000/x12x7x20%=1,34,400/-. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation as under:

¶58

Sl.No.	Particulars	Rs.
1.	Towards pain and agony	Rs. 60,000/-
2.	Towards medical expenses	Rs.6,50,000/-
3.	Towards loss of income during laid up	Rs. 48,000/-
4.	Towards loss of amenities	Rs. 75,000/-
5.	Towards future medical expenses	Rs. 25,000/-

¶59

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:30650 MFA No. 6864 of 2013

¶60

6.	Towards attendant charges	Rs. 8,000/-
7.	Towards traveling charges	Rs. 10,000/-
8.	Towards food & nourishment	Rs. 25,000/-
9.	Towards loss of future income	Rs.1,34,400/-
	Total	Rs.10,35,400/-
Less: Tribun	compensation awarded by the al	Rs. 8,00,000/-
	Enhanced compensation	Rs.2,35,400/-

¶61

It is the just compensation which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the appeal merits consideration, in the result, the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶64

(ii) The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified.

¶65

(iii) The petitioner would be entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.2,35,400/with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit excluding interest on future medical expenses

¶66

iv) The insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount along with accrued

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:30650 MFA No. 6864 of 2013

¶68

10 -

¶69

interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶70

SD/(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA) JUDGE

¶71

MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Sri Cherian C.T. v. the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Cherian C.T. v. the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.

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 Suryanarayanappa S/O Venkatappa Vs Sri Chalapathi S/O Late K M Chowdappa

Sureshachari S/O Krishnappa Vs Nagaraja R S/O Rangappa

Sri Maregowda S/O Puttaiah Vs Mohammad Hussain S/O Hayanth Sab

Sri Subramani Vs Sri Venkateshappa

Ambarish Vs Sri Vishwanath

Shankaramma Vs Praveen K. S.