Partly allowed

Srirangappa v. Sadiq Ali

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2024MFA/7571/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the compensation award for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. The High Court allowed the appeal partly, enhancing the compensation by recalculating future income and injury-related heads, and directed the insurer to pay interest at 6% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced total compensation of Rs. 443,068/- awarded; interest fixed at 6% p.a. except for future medical expenses; payment directed within six weeks.

Srirangappa Vs Sadiq Ali — Medical Negligence | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39009 MFA No. 7571 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7571 OF 2019 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRIRANGAPPA S/O. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT #602, ATTUR LAYOUT YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI.N R RANGEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SADIQ ALI S/O. ABDUL SALAM.M MAJOR, R/AT #230 NEHARU PURAM THIMMAIAH ROAD CROSS BENGALURU-560 094.

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REP BY ITS MANAGER T. P. HUB, KRUSHI BHAVAN HUDSON CIRCLE, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 002.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M V CHADRASHEKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT

¶16

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.03.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.6379/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MACT, BENGALURU

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39009 MFA No. 7571 of 2019

¶18

(SCCH-11), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant challenging by the judgment dated 20.03.2019 passed by MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.6379/2017.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 05.08.2017 when the claimant was proceeding by walk on Dasarahalli Main Road, in front of Godrej Apartment, at that time, two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-04-HF-5184 being ridden by its rider at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39009 MFA No. 7571 of 2019

¶25

accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶26

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the

¶27

Act, seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent significant amount towards medical expenses, conveyance charges and other related costs. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.

¶28

Upon service of notice, the respondents appeared through counsel and filed written statements denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶29

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.231,248/along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39009 MFA No. 7571 of 2019

¶31

Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶32

The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions:

¶33

a) Firstly, the claimant asserts that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working as driver. However, the Tribunal has erred in taking the income as merely as Rs.8,500/- per month.

¶34

b) Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2. The Tribunal undervalued the claimant's whole-body disability at 8%, contradicting the evidence of the doctor that the claimant suffered 44% disability to particular limb and 14% to whole body.

¶35

c) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 4 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39009 MFA No. 7571 of 2019

¶37

same, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side.

¶38

With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to allow the appeal.

¶39

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following countercontentions:

¶40

a) Firstly, the assertion of claimant that he was earning

¶41

Rs.20,000/- per month, remains unsubstantiated due to lack of documentary evidence. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶42

b) Secondly, the Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and evidence of the doctor, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 8%.

¶43

c) Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39009 MFA No. 7571 of 2019

¶45

Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not warrant interference.

¶46

d) Lastly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –vVenkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the compensation amount appears excessive.

¶47

With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶48

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶49

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 05.08.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶50

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39009 MFA No. 7571 of 2019

¶51

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/per month. But he has not produced any documents to substantiate his claim. Therefore, in the absence of proof of income, notional income has to be assessed. According to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year 2017, notional income shall be taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m.

¶52

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained bicondylar fracture of right proximal tibia, swelling, tenderness, deformity present over right leg, multiple abrasions over both hands, legs, at the back. Taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the whole body disability can be taken at 14%. The claimant is aged about 46 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘13’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.240,240/- (Rs.110001213*14%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶53

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:39009 MFA No. 7571 of 2019

¶54

The nature of injuries indicates that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 2 months. Consequently, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.22,000/- (Rs.11,000*2 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶55

The claimant was hospitalized as an inpatient for more than 4 days in the hospital and subsequently received further treatment. Therefore, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded under the head of ‘food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges’ from Rs.1,200/- to Rs.8,000/- .

¶56

Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. Considering the prolonged pain during treatment as well as the permanent disability certified by the doctor, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.10,000/-

¶57

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:39009 MFA No. 7571 of 2019

¶58

to Rs.40,000/- and under the head of 'loss of amenities'

¶59

from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.30,000/- .

¶60

Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation

¶61

awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶62

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

¶63

compensation:

¶64

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	10,000	40,000
Medical expenses	102,828	102,828
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	1,200	8,000
Loss of income during laid up period	1,140	22,000
Loss of amenities	10,000	30,000
Loss of future income	106,080	240,240
Total	231,248	443,068

¶65

10 -

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC:39009 MFA No. 7571 of 2019

¶67

17. In the result, the following order is passed:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶70

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶71

c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.443,068/-.

¶72

d) Following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’ (supra) , the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% p.a.

¶73

e) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. However, the compensation awarded under the head of 'future medical expenses' shall not carry any interest.

¶74

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶75

¶76

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Srirangappa v. Sadiq Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srirangappa v. Sadiq Ali

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

Harini B Vs Divisional Controller Ksrtc

Smt Rukmini Vs Anthony Waste Handling Cell Pvt. Ltd.

Naganna @ Nagaraja Vs Yeshavanthanaika

The Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Pushpavathi

Sri Basavaraju Vs Sri. Channappa

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Jayalakshmi