Partly allowed

Sri. Puttamadegowda v. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Karnataka HC24 Jan 2024MFA/7434/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured as a pedestrian in a car accident appealed for enhancement of Tribunal's compensation. Court raised disability to 15%, income to Rs.14,500/-, enhanced heads of compensation and awarded total Rs.4,49,969/- with interest at 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs.4,49,969/- with interest @6% p.a., to be paid by respondent within four weeks.

Sri. Puttamadegowda Vs Icici Lombard General… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:3311 MFA No. 7434 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7434 OF 2022 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. PUTTAMADEGOWDA, S/O. MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 5, AZAD NAGAR, NAVAGRAHA TEMPLE ROAD, NEAR K.N.S. CIRCLE, KANAKAPURA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. GIRIMALLAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.121, THE ESTATE, 9TH FLOOR, DICKENSON ROAD, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 042, BY IT'S MANAGER.

¶14

MR. NAVEEN KUMAR. B. K. S/O. KRISHNA MURTHY B. N., MAJOR, (AGE OF R-2 NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANT) RESIDENT OF: RANGAMMA LAYOUT, ANEKAL TALUK, BANNERGHATTA, BENGALURU - 560 083.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAM RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 24.01.2024)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:3311 MFA No. 7434 of 2022

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.07.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.1897/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-10), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is preferred by the appellant - claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 16.07.2022 passed in MVC.No.1897/2020 by the XIV Additional Small Causes Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH10) (for short 'the Tribunal'). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶22

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶23

Brief facts of the case is as under:

¶24

That on 08.03.2020 at about 5:40 p.m., the claimant was

¶25

pedestrian and while he was walking near K.N.S.Circle,

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:3311 MFA No. 7434 of 2022

¶27

opposite Reliance Mart, Kanakapura Town, Ramanagara District, during which time the driver of the Maruthi Alto-800 Car bearing registration No.KA-51-ME-6683 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Due to the occurrence of the accident, the claimant fell down on the road and sustained injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Kanakapura Government Hospital and thereafter he was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi hospital, Bengaluru where he took treatment as inpatient. After taking treatment, he was advised by the doctor to take regular follow-up treatment.

¶28

3.1. It is the case of the claimant that he was working as a Security Guard at Reliance Mart, Kanakapura Town and earning Rs.18,000/- per month. He spent huge amount for treatment and the fracture undergone. Hence, the claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation.

¶29

3.2. On service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have appeared before the Tribunal through their respective counsel and respondent No.2 filed statement of objections, denied the age, avocation and income of the claimant and so also denied the negligence attributed against the driver of the offending vehicle and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:3311 MFA No. 7434 of 2022

¶32

3.3. On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration.

¶33

3.4. In order to substantiate the issue and to establish

¶34

the case, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and the doctor as PW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.13 where as the respondents neither examined any witness nor got marked any documents.

¶35

3.5. On the basis of the material evidence produced, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,20,089/- with interest @ 6% per annum, directing respondent No.1 - Insurance Company to deposit the compensation within two months from the date of the order.

¶36

3.6. Being aggrieved by the meager compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶37

It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel

¶38

for the claimant that the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation and hence sought for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the assessment of income is on the lower side. So also, the disability assessed by the

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:3311 MFA No. 7434 of 2022

¶40

Tribunal is on the lesser side and the compensation under the other heads requires to be enhanced. On these grounds, he seeks to allow the appeal and consequently, enhance the compensation.

¶41

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - Insurance Company sustains the order of the Tribunal. He submits that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation on the basis of material evidence placed on record and there is no proof of income. Hence, the Tribunal has taken the notional income which does not call for interference. He also contends that under other heads, no interference is called for. On these grounds, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶42

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 08.03.2020. When the claimant was walking on the road side, the driver of the Maruthi Alto-800 Car dashed against him, due to which, the claimant sustained injuries and he was inpatient for 14 days, underwent treatment, incurred financial expenditures and suffered mental trauma and disability. The doctor is examined as PW.2 and he

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:3311 MFA No. 7434 of 2022

¶44

deposed that there is disability of 45% to the right lower limb and 15% to the whole body whereas the Tribunal has assessed the disability as 8% to the whole body. I am afraid that the reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the claimant that the disability ought to have been taken at 15% as opined by the doctor (PW.2). The Tribunal cannot sit over the opinion of the doctor (PW.2), who is expert in the field of medicine, unless there is contrary material placed on record to disprove the same either by way of materials or through cross-examination. Under the circumstances, the disability has to be taken at 15% as against 8%.

¶45

The claimant is aged 54 years and appropriate multiplier would be 11 which is correctly assessed by the Tribunal which does not call for interference. Towards loss of future earnings due to disability, it would be Rs.2,87,100/- (Rs.14,500x12x11x15%) as against Rs.1,26,720/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶46

Towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/-. Additional Rs.20,000/- is awarded under this

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:3311 MFA No. 7434 of 2022

¶48

head. Hence, Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the head of pain and suffering.

¶49

Towards loss of amenities, Rs.20,000/- is awarded. Additional Rs.15,000/- is awarded under this head. Hence, the same is enhanced to Rs.35,000/- .

¶50

Towards attendant charges, food and nourishment, conveyance charges, Rs.14,000/- is awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant was inpatient for 14 days and the same does not call for interference.

¶51

Towards loss of income during the laid up period, the Tribunal awarded Rs.24,000/-. In view of this Court enhancing the income to Rs.14,500/-, Rs.43,500/- (Rs.14,500x3) is awarded under this head as three months period would be required by the claimant to get back to day today activities.

¶52

Towards medical bills, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,369/- which is on the basis of actual bills and the same is not interfered.

¶53

It is contended that the doctor (PW.2) has stated in the evidence that future medical expenses shall be required at Rs.25,000/-. This Court deems it appropriate to award

¶54

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:3311 MFA No. 7434 of 2022

¶55

Rs.15,000/- under the head of future medical expenses as implants would have to be removed which is not awarded by the Tribunal.

¶56

In view of the above discussion, the claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,49,969/- as against

¶57

Rs.2,20,089/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶58

SL. No.	Heads	Amount in Rs.
1.	Loss of future earnings	2,87, 100-00
2.	Pain and sufferings	50,000-00
3.	Loss of amenities	35,000-00
4.	Attendant charges, food and nourishment, conveyance charges	14,000-00
5.	Loss of income during the laid up period	43,500-00
6.	Medical expenses	5,369-00
7.	Future medical expenses	15,000-00
	TOTAL	4,49,969-00

¶59

(l) Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;

¶62

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:3311 MFA No. 7434 of 2022

¶63

ii) The judgment and award dated 16.07.2022 passed in MVC.No.1897/2020 by the XIV Additional Small Causes Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-10), is modified;

¶64

iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,49,969/- as against Rs.2,20,089/- awarded by the Tribunal along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization;

¶65

iv) The entire compensation amount shall be paid by the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶66

v) The original records shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith;

¶67

vi) The entire compensation shall be released and disbursed in favour of the claimant upon proper verification.

¶68

MEG

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 CT: BHK

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

Sri. Puttamadegowda v. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Puttamadegowda v. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

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 Laxmi Rathod Vs Sri D H Arunodaya

Suresh G K Vs M S Eshwarappa

M Siddamallappa Vs Siddaraju J

Manivel R Vs Shashikanta Patra

Sri C Adisheshaiah Chalasani Vs Sri Reddappa

Smt. Sushila Vs P. Koushik Rao