Partly allowed

Smt Rajeshwari R v. the Regional Manager

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2024MFA/7422/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially allowed an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award, enhancing compensation due to underestimation of lay-up period and global inadequacy in compensation components.

What did the court decide?

Compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is enhanced by Rs. 50,000 with interest at 6% per annum; the insurer is directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks.

Smt Rajeshwari R Vs the Regional Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39538 MFA No. 7422 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7422 OF 2022(MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. RAJESHWARI R., W/O. RAJESH. S, AGED 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.85, RAVINANANDANA SCHOOL ROAD, 9^TH CROSS, KAVERINAGARA, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KRISHI BHAVANA, 6^TH FLOOR, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

SMT. SANDHYA C., W/O YOGESH P., MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT BASAVESHWARANAGARA ARISHINAKUNTE, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 123.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. B. A. RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O. DATED 13.08.2024, R2-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39538 MFA No. 7422 of 2022

¶17

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.09.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.5754/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SCJ AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-3, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

Heard Sri.Vijay Kumar.T learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.B.A.Ramakrishna learned counsel for the respondent No.1 Insurance Company.

¶22

The claimant is before this Court seeking

¶23

enhancement of compensation challenging the order that is passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in MVC No.5754/2019 dated 09.09.2022.

¶24

As against the claim fro Rs.25,00,000/-, the Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.4,49,998/- as compensation.

¶25

Sri.Vijay Kumar.T arguing the matter, contends that the appellant sustained grievous injury due to the accident. The

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39538 MFA No. 7422 of 2022

¶27

appellant was earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month by the date of accident. However, taking the notional income of the appellant as Rs.14,000/- per month, the Tribunal awarded a meager sum as compensation under the head loss of future income. Learned counsel also states that the compensation granted under all other heads is also low. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement of compensation.

¶28

Sri.B.A.Ramakrishna learned counsel for the respondent No.1 Insurance Company on the other hand states that the compensation granted is highly justifiable. Learned counsel thereby seeks to dismiss the claim petition.

¶29

It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained

¶30

surgical neck humorous fracture which is grievous is nature. PW2 deposed that he assessed the disability as 42% in respect of right arm and 14% in respect of whole body. The Tribunal considering the totality of evidence produced, came to a conclusion that the disability in respect of whole body is required to be taken as 10%. The said observation is justifiable. Though the appellant projected that she was doing business under the name and style "Poorvika Home Appliances

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39538 MFA No. 7422 of 2022

¶32

Furniture" and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month, as rightly contended by learned counsel for respondent No.1, the appellant failed to establish the said fact. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in assessing the notional income of the appellant as Rs.14,000/- per month. Also the compensation granted i.e., Rs.2,85,600/- under the head loss of future earnings is justifiable. However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.14,000/- only under the head loss of income during laid up period expressing a view that the appellant would not have attended her normal work for about one month. However, having considered the nature of injuries sustained, this Court is of the view that the appellant would not have attended her normal pursuits atleast for a period of two months. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.14,000/under the head loss of income during laid up period.

¶33

As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Vijay Kumar T, the compensation granted under the head loss of amenities in life, for nutritious food, for attendant charges and for conveyance charges is on lower side. Also the amount awarded under the head pain and suffering is also on lower side. Therefore, this Court is of the view that

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:39538 MFA No. 7422 of 2022

¶36

globally, the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶39

(ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, through orders in MVC No.5754/2019, dated 09.09.2022 is enhanced by Rs.50,000/-.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

(v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

¶43

(vi) The order of pay and recovery applies to the enhanced sum as well.

¶44

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶45

DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66

Smt Rajeshwari R v. the Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rajeshwari R v. the Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Venkatesh T M Vs the Manager

Smt. Pinki Devi Vs Cheeranda.M.Muddappa

Mohammed Mijaan Vs the Divisional Controller Ksrtc

Narasimha Murthy H R Vs Krishnaiah L C

The Managing Director Vs Smt. Kempalakshmamma

Narayana Vs Vinod Raje Urs