Partly allowed

Sri. Chandrashekar v. Cholamanadalam Ms General Company Ltd.

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2024MFA/759/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the dismissal of a motor accident claim petition, holding that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim on the ground that the accident was not established when owners admitted it. The Court modified the award, assessing disability at 20%, and directed the insurers to pay total compensation of Rs. 7,90,300 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Claimant awarded total compensation of Rs. 7,90,300/- plus 6% interest per annum from date of petition till realization, to be deposited equally by respondent insurers within two months.

Sri. Chandrashekar Vs Cholamanadalam Ms General… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:48697 MFA No. 759 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.759 OF 2020 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR @ CHANDRASHEKARAIAH @ CHANDRAPPA, S/O. MADAPPA @ MADAIAH @ MALLAPPA AGE 40 YEARS R/AT TALAWADI VILLAGE JALAMANGALA POST KUTAGAL HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DIST 571 511 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GIRIMALLAIAH, ADV.)

¶8

AND:

¶9

CHOLAMANADALAM MS GENERAL COMPANY LTD., UNIT-IV, 9^TH FLOOR Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A (LEVEL -06), GOLDEN HEIGHTS Location: HIGH COMPLEX, 59^TH C CROSS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL SUBURB KARNATAKA RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU 560 010

¶10

MR. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH S/O. VEERAIAH, MAJOR R/O. DODDAGANGAVADI VILLAGE AND POST KOOTGAL HOBLI RAMANAGARA DIST 571 511

¶11

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:48697 MFA No. 759 of 2020

¶12

MR. SHIVAKUMAR T. S. S/O. SHIVANNA, MAJOR R/O. THALAVADI VILLAGE JALAMANGALA POST KOOTAGAL HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DIST 571 511

¶13

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO. 69, 3^RD FLOOR IP AND DEVIJAMBUKESHWARA ARCADE, MILLERS ROAD BENGALURU 560 052 …RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI.H.S.LINGARAJU, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. PRADEEP B.,ADV. FOR R4; VIDE ORDER DATED 31.1.2024 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;

¶15

R3 IS SERVED AS PER RPAD CASE STATUS)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.5907/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, M.A.C.T., BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-14), DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

The claimant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by

¶21

the dismissal of his claim petition.

¶22

It is the case of the claimant that he was traveling in

¶23

the tractor-trailer bearing Registration No.KA-42-T-6504

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:48697 MFA No. 759 of 2020

¶25

and 6291 as a coolie, when an accident occurred as a result of the driver of the tractor losing control and tractor turned turtle, which resulted in grievous injuries to the claimant.

¶26

The Tribunal has taken a view that the claimant had not established in which particular trailer he was traveling and merely because it was admitted by the Insurance Company that both the tractor and trailer was involved in the accident and owners had also admitted the occurrence of the accident, it cannot be held that the accident has not been established. In my view, when the owners of the vehicles have admitted the occurrence of the accident, the Tribunal could not have dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the accident had not been established.

¶27

Rule 226 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules does permit an attendant to travel in the trailer, which is being drawn by the tractor. Rule 100 of the said Rules also permits employees of the goods vehicle to be carried in the goods vehicle subject to the weight of the goods

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:48697 MFA No. 759 of 2020

¶29

vehicle. It is therefore clear that the insurer would be liable to pay compensation in respect of an employee of the owner of the tractor-trailer, who was being carried in the tractor-trailer. Consequently, the reasoning of the Tribunal for dismissal of the claim petition is unsound, and it is accordingly set aside.

¶30

Though under the normal circumstances the matter was required to be remanded to the Tribunal for assessment of the compensation payable to the claimant, having regard to the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2016, it would be unwise to remand the matter to the Tribunal for adjudication of compensation. Hence, the adjudication of compensation is therefore taken in this appeal itself.

¶31

The doctor, who treated the claimant was examined and he has stated that the claimant had suffered degloving injuries to fore arm and fracture of femur. He has also stated that the claimant has suffered whole body disability to the extent of 20%. In my view, this assessment cannot

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:48697 MFA No. 759 of 2020

¶33

be found fault with and consequently, it is held that the claimant has suffered a disability to the extent of 20% to his whole body.

¶34

Since there is no credible documentary evidence to ascertain the actual monthly income, it would be appropriate and prudent to adopt the monthly income determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which, for the accident of the year 2016, would be Rs.9,500/-.

¶35

Since the claimant has suffered whole body disability in excess of 20% and since he was aged 36 years at the time of the accident, 40% of the notional income towards ‘future prospects’ requires to be added, which makes the income as Rs.13,300/- (Rs.9,500+40%). Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.478,800/- (Rs.13,300 x 12 x 15 x 20%) towards 'loss of future income' .

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:48697 MFA No. 759 of 2020

¶37

The laid-up period for the injuries sustained by the

¶38

claimant will have to be taken as 5 months. Hence, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.47,500/- (9,500 X 5 months) towards 'loss of income during laid-up period' .

¶39

Having regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards 'pain and suffering' .

¶40

Having regard to the lasting effects of the injuries on

¶41

the claimant, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of

¶42

Rs.75,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities’.

¶43

The claimant was hospitalized for a period of 56

¶44

days. Having regard to the length of the stay of the claimant in the hospital, the claimant would also be entitled to 'conveyance, food and nourishment and attendant charges' at Rs.60,000/- .

¶45

The claimant has produced medical bills to the tune

¶46

of Rs.53,086/- for hospitalization expenses. Therefore, he

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:48697 MFA No. 759 of 2020

¶49

is entitled to a sum of Rs.54,000/- towards 'medical

¶50

expenses'.

¶51

14. Consequently the award of the Tribunal is modified

¶52

and the claimant would be entitled to the following compensation:

¶53

Sl. No.	Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
1.	Pain and sufferings	75,000
2.	Medical expenses	54,000
3.	Conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges	60,000
4.	Loss of income during laid up period	47,500
5.	Loss of amenities	75,000
6.	Loss of future income	4,78,800
	TOTAL	7,90,300

¶54

Thus, the claimant is held entitled to the total compensation of Rs.790,300/- , along with interest at the

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:48697 MFA No. 759 of 2020

¶57

rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶58

Both the Insurance Companies i.e., respondent No.1 and respondent No.4 are directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded equally within two months from

¶59

the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶60

17. The disbursement of the compensation amount shall

¶61

be in terms of the award of the Tribunal.

¶62

This appeal is accordingly allowed in part .

¶63

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶64

DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Sri. Chandrashekar v. Cholamanadalam Ms General Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Chandrashekar v. Cholamanadalam Ms General 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

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt. Chikkennamma

Divisional Controller Vs Rangaiaha

Sri Narasimhamurthy a T Vs Smt Prathiba H

M/S. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri. Lakshmana Gowda

Rathnakar Vs Raghavendra Prasad

Geetha Manekar Vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.