Partly allowed

Sri.Nagendra C.T. v. Sri.Yogesh.a

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2024MFA/773/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant sought enhancement of motor accident compensation of Rs.1,23,700 awarded for injuries including metatarsal fractures. The High Court found no substantive proof of permanent disability but enhanced compensation globally by Rs.30,000 with 6% interest, directing the insurer to deposit within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs.30,000 with 6% p.a. interest from date of petition; insurer to deposit within eight weeks.

Sri.Nagendra C.T. Vs Sri.Yogesh.a — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37163 MFA No. 773 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 773 OF 2023 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.NAGENDRA C.T., S/O LATE THIMMABHOVI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1, CHALLARAHALLIKOPPALU, MELUKOTI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571431.

¶8

PRESENT ADDRESS: NO. B11, WING OO3 FLAT, B. D. A. APARTMENT, MALAGALA, BENGALURU - 560 072.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SATISHCHANDRA R.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI.YOGESH A., S/O. ANJANAPPA MAJOR, R/AT NO. 525, 4^TH CROSS, OPPOSITE RAGI MILL, ANDRAHALLI, BENGALURU- 560 091. (OWNER OF SUZUKI MOTOR CYCLE BEARING REG. NO. KA-02-KA-8692)

¶14

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED, NO. 28, 5^TH FLOOR, SOUTHERN PORTION, EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING, M. G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:37163 MFA No. 773 of 2023

¶17

REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER (POLICY NO. 991791923750032896 VALID FROM 22-06-2019 TO 21-06-2020)

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL , ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 01.02.2023)

¶20

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.08.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.3384/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRL. MACT, CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, PRL. MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-1, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard Sri.Satishchandra.R, learned counsel for the

¶25

appellant as well as Sri.Ashok.N.Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

¶26

The claimant is before this Court challenging

¶27

the order that is rendered by the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.3384/2020 dated

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37163 MFA No. 773 of 2023

¶29

01.08.2022. When the appellant projected a claim for Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation, the Tribunal through the

¶30

impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.1,23,700/- as compensation divided under following heads:

¶31

Sl. No	Description	Amount
1	Pain and sufferings	Rs.40,000
2	Medical expenses	Rs.11,200
3	Food and nourishment, attendant charges	Rs.3,000
4	Transportation charges	Rs.5,000
5	Loss of income during the treatment and rest period	Rs.14,500
6	Loss of amenities	Rs.50,000
	Total	Rs.1,23,700

¶32

Arguing the matter, Sri.Satishchandra.R,

¶33

learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant sustained grievous injuries due to the accident.

¶34

The appellant was working as delivery boy at Zomato by the date of accident. However, due to the injury sustained he lost his earnings. Though through the evidence of Pw.3,

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37163 MFA No. 773 of 2023

¶36

the aspect of disability was established, the Tribunal did not award any amount under the head loss of future earnings which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel also contends that the sum awarded as compensation under all other heads is also grossly low and therefore, the appeal is filed.

¶37

Sri.Ashok.N.Patil, on the other hand states that the Tribunal, taking into consideration the totality of the facts, awarded a justifiable sum as compensation and therefore, the award needs no interference.

¶38

It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained fracture of 4^th and 5^th metatarsal bones and underwent debridement and K wires fixation. It is brought on record that the appellant took treatment as inpatient for two days. Pw.3 spoke about the alleged disability basing on the complaint of the appellant. Apart from that there is no substantive proof to show that there is permanent physical disability. However, considering the fact that the appellant sustained fracture of metatarsal bones and underwent

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37163 MFA No. 773 of 2023

¶40

surgery, this Court is of the view that the appellant would not have attended his normal pursuits at least for a period of two months. Also the sum awarded under the head pain and suffering requires slight enhancement. Therefore, this Court is of the view that globally the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- in addition to the sum that is awarded by the Tribunal.

¶41

Thus the appeal is disposed of with the

¶42

following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶45

(ii) The compensation that is awarded by the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru through orders in MVC No.3384/2020 dated 01.08.2022 is enhanced by Rs.30,000/-.

¶46

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

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:37163 MFA No. 773 of 2023

¶48

¶49

(iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of 8(eight) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶50

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

¶51

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶52

NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Sri.Nagendra C.T. v. Sri.Yogesh.a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Nagendra C.T. v. Sri.Yogesh.a

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. Rekha Vs Ramesha

Smt Waheeda Begum Vs the Manager

Krishnaprasad Vs Shekar

Mr. Chandrahasa Vs Mr. Avinash v Poojary

Smt Mangalagowramma @ Mangalagowri Vs Sri Rajegowda

The Manager Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Rangu Naik