Partly allowed

Smt Jayamma v. Sri Niranjan S

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2024MFA/7191/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for injuries with permanent partial disability sustained in a 2013 road accident. The High Court raised notional income from Rs.6,000 to Rs.8,000 per month, recalculated loss of future earnings and laid-up period earnings, enhanced loss of amenities, and increased total compensation to Rs.3,85,778 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.3,30,458 to Rs.3,85,778 plus interest at 6% p.a., payable by respondent No.2 (insurer) within six weeks.

Smt Jayamma Vs Sri Niranjan S — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 7191 of 2015 NC: 2024:KHC:22146

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶7

M.F.A NO.7191 OF 2015 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O SRI GANGARAJU R/AT NO.88-E, 3^RD CROSS RAMACHANDRAPURA BENGALURU - 560 021

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SUMUKH SHASTRY P, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUDHA D, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SRI NIRANJAN S MAJOR, FLAT NO.180, BLOCK NO.18 JEEVAN MITHRA COLONY J P NAGAR I PHASE, 10^TH CROSS, 25^TH MAIN BENGALURU - 506 078

¶15

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD NO.460/20, I FLOOR 8^TH B MAIN ROAD NEXT TO JAIN TEMPLE 4^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU -560 011

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER AS MAY BE

¶19

¶20

MFA No. 7191 of 2015 NC: 2024:KHC:22146

¶21

DEEMED FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TOGETHER WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

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

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by petitioner under Section 173(1) of M.V.Act, seeking enhancement of the compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident dated 01.07.2013.

¶25

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.

¶26

FACTS: It is the case of the petitioner that on 01.07.2013, at about 6.30 p.m, when she was crossing the Kempegowda Road, opposite to St. Martha's Hospital, Bengaluru, rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA05/HS-4426 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle'), came in a high speed in a rash or negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. As a result of the accident, she sustained grievous injuries resulting in permanent partial disability. Despite prolonged treatment,

¶27

¶28

MFA No. 7191 of 2015 NC: 2024:KHC:22146

¶29

she is not completely cured. As the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, both respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and hence, the petition.

¶30

Before the Tribunal, both respondents appeared through counsel. However, only respondent No.2 filed written statement disputing that the accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle. On the other hand, it is alleged that the petitioner was crossing the road unmindful of the vehicular traffic and accident occurred on account of her negligence. Respondent No.2 has also disputed the age, occupation, income of the petitioner, nature of the injuries suffered

¶31

and that they have resulted in permanent partial disability.

¶32

The coverage of vehicle is admitted but the liability of respondent No.2 is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The compensation claimed is exorbitant, fanciful and without any basis and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶33

¶34

MFA No. 7191 of 2015 NC: 2024:KHC:22146

¶35

5. Based on these pleadings, Tribunal has framed

¶36

necessary issues.

¶37

6. Petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and

¶38

the Doctor as PW-2. She has relied upon Exs.P1 to 17.

¶39

On behalf of respondent No.2, RW-1 is

¶40

examined and Exs.R1 to 6 are marked.

¶41

Vide the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition granting compensation in a sum of `3,30,458/- with interest @6% p.a. and directed respondent No.2 to pay the same. The

¶42

details of compensation granted are as under:

¶43

Heads	AmountIn`
Injury pain and sufferings	60,000
Loss of earnings during Medical	18,000
treatment
Medicalexpenses	94,498
Loss of future earning due to disability	1,02,960
Loss ofamenities	25,000
Conveyance, Nourishment food and attending charges	10,000
Future medical expenses	20,000
TOTAL	3,30,458

¶44

5 - MFA No. 7191 of 2015 NC: 2024:KHC:22146

¶45

9. Respondents have not challenged the impugned

¶46

judgment and award.

¶47

During the course of arguments, learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the compensation granted is meager, inadequate and requires enhancement. Since the injuries suffered by the petitioner have resulted in permanent partial disability, the compensation granted under all the heads requires reconsideration and prays to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation.

¶48

On the other hand, the learned counsel representing respondent No.2 supported the impugned judgment and award and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶49

Heard arguments and perused the records.

¶50

Having regard to the fact that respondents have

¶51

not challenged the impugned judgment and award, the findings of the Tribunal that accident occurred due to the

¶52

¶53

MFA No. 7191 of 2015 NC: 2024:KHC:22146

¶54

rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle and in the said accident, petitioner sustained grievous injuries resulting in permanent partial disability has attained finality.

¶55

Though petitioner has pleaded that at the time of accident, she was aged 48 years, in the cause title, she has given her age as 55 years. In medical records also, the age is given as 55 years. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in taking age as 55 years and consequently, multiplier 11 considered by the Tribunal is correct. Taking into consideration, the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner coupled with the evidence of PW2, the Tribunal is justified in taking the disability suffered by the

¶56

petitioner as 13% of the whole body. Though the petitioner has claimed that she was earning `500/- per day during coolie, in the absence of proof of exact income, the Tribunal is justified in taking her income on notional basis. Since the accident is of the year 2013, based on minimum wages, the notional income ought to have been

¶57

¶58

MFA No. 7191 of 2015 NC: 2024:KHC:22146

¶59

taken at 8,000/-p.m. instead of 6,000/-p.m. With the notional income at 8,000/-, disability at 13% and multiplier 11, the compensation under the head 'loss of future earnings' is 8,000/- x 12 x 11 x 13% = 1,37,280/as against 1,02,960/- granted by the Tribunal.

¶60

Having regard to the fact that petitioner has sustained fracture, it would be reasonable to expect that she was under treatment for a minimum period of three months. Therefore, at the rate of 8,000/- per month for three months, petitioner is entitled for compensation in a sum of 24,000/- under the head 'loss of earnings during laid up period' as against `18,000/- granted by the Tribunal.

¶61

Taking into consideration the nature of injuries suffered and that they have resulted in permanent partial disability and the period of treatment, compensation granted in a sum of 60,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering' is just and reasonable. However, 25,000/-

¶62

8 - MFA No. 7191 of 2015 NC: 2024:KHC:22146

¶63

granted under the head 'loss of amenities' is on the lower

¶64

side and therefore, it is enhanced to `40,000/-.

¶65

Based on medical bills, the compensation granted under the head 'Medical Expenses' is correct and requires no reconsideration. Similarly, compensation granted in a sum of 10,000/under the head 'Conveyance, nourishing food and attending charges' and also 20,000/- granted under the head 'Future medical expenses' is also just and reasonable. It also does not call for interference.

¶66

Thus, in all petitioner is entitled for total compensation in a sum of 3,85,778/- as against 3,30,458/- granted by the Tribunal as detailed below:

¶67

¶68

MFA No. 7191 of 2015 NC: 2024:KHC:22146

¶69

Heads	Amount granted by the Tribunal In`	Amount granted by this Court In`
Injury pain and sufferings	60,000	60,000
Loss of earnings during Medical treatment	18,000	24,000
Medical expenses	94,498	94,498
Loss of future earning due to disability	1,02,960	1,37,280
Loss of amenities	25,000	40,000
Conveyance, Nourishment food and attending charges	10,000	10,000
Future medical expenses	20,000	20,000
TOTAL	3,30,458	3,85,778

¶70

Of course, petitioner is entitled for interest at

¶71

the rate of interest at 6% p.a.

¶72

As the insurer respondent No.2 is liable to pay

¶73

the compensation with accrued interest and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶74

ORDER

¶75

(a) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶76

10 -

¶77

MFA No. 7191 of 2015 NC: 2024:KHC:22146

¶78

(b) Petitioner is entitled for compensation in a sum of 3,85,778/- as against 3,30,458/granted by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a.

¶79

(c) Respondent No.2 is directed to pay the compensation together with interest at 6% p.a from the date of petition till realization (minus the amount already paid/deposited) within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

¶80

(d) The Registry is directed to send copy of this judgment to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶81

Sd/JUDGE

¶82

MDS

¶83

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Smt Jayamma v. Sri Niranjan S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Jayamma v. Sri Niranjan S

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

Kumari Rohini D/O Ishwar Kusugal Vs the State of Karnataka

Geetha Vs Sathish

Mrs. Sarojini Vs Mrs. Sujatha Shetty

Shri S R Jagganna Vs Smt Gayathri

Shivamartayya S/O Gurupadayya Chikkamath Vs the State of Karnataka

Kavya Alias Madhushri W/O Akash Mathapati Vs the State of Karnataka