Partly allowed

Sri Maregowda S/O Puttaiah v. Mohammad Hussain S/O Hayanth Sab

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2024MFA/7953/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the injured cleaner's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation while partly allowing the insurer's appeal to reduce the amount awarded by the Tribunal, recalculating the total compensation to Rs. 2,88,333/- based on notional income and verified expenses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced to Rs. 2,88,333/-; Petitioner's appeal dismissed; Insurer's appeal partly allowed with direction to deposit amount within eight weeks.

Sri Maregowda S/O Puttaiah Vs Mohammad… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:30547 MFA No. 7953 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6697 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶7

MFA NO. 7953 OF 2012 C/W MFA NO. 6697 OF 2012 (MV-I)

¶8

IN MFA NO. 7953/ 2012

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI MAREGOWDA S/O PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT THERINA BEEDI THYMAGONDLU NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DIST …APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN S/O HAYANTH SAB AGED MAJOR, R/AT SCRAP MERCHANT JCN NEAR NEW POST OFFICE, SIRA TUMKUR DIST 57213

¶14

Digitally signed by PRAJWAL A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. NO 21 TBR TOWERS I^ST CROSS, NEW MISSION ROAD, ADJACENT TO BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE, BANGALORE 560 027 …RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY MS. H R RENUKA, ADV. FOR R2; R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

IN MFA NO. 6697/2012

¶18

BETWEEN:

¶19

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. NO 21 TBR TOWERS I^ST CROSS, NEW MISSION ROAD, ADJACENT TO BANGALORE STOCK

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:30547 MFA No. 7953 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6697 of 2012

¶21

¶22

EXCHANGE, JC ROAD, BANGALORE 560 027 REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT(CLAIMS)

¶23

…APPELLANT

¶24

(BY MS.H.R.RENUKA, ADV.)

¶25

AND:

¶26

MAREGOWDA S/O PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT THERINA BEEDI THYMAGONDLU NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DIST .

¶27

MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN S/O HAYANTH SAB ADULT, SCRAP MERCHANT JCN NEAR NEW POST OFFICE, SIRA TUMKUR DIST 57213 …RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADV. FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶29

THESE MFA'S ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.04.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.792/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND IN MFA 6697 OF 2012 AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,13,960/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A.FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN THE TRIBUNAL.

¶30

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:30547 MFA No. 7953 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6697 of 2012

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

In these two appeals, the petitioner as well as the Insurance Company are assailing the quantum of compensation awarded by the M.A.C.T., Bangalore (SCCH.13) ('the Tribunal' for brevity) vide judgment and award dated 10.04.2012 in M.V.C.No.792/2011.

¶35

For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶36

Brief facts of the case are, on 24.11.2010 at about 9.15 a.m., the petitioner while travelling in the Canter bearing registration No.KA-53/2949 as a cleaner on Kulemepalya - Thyamagondlu Road, Nelamangala Taluk near the house of one Rangaiah, the said vehicle met with an accident, due to which the petitioner sustained injuries, he was treated at Government Hospital, Nelamangala, then at K.C.General Hospital, Bangalore. After taking treatment, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation of

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:30547 MFA No. 7953 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6697 of 2012

¶38

Rs.4 lakhs. Claim was opposed by the respondents. After taking the evidence and hearing both parties, the Tribunal by impugned judgment allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.3,13,960/- with interest @ 6% p.a. Pleading inadequacy and seeking enhancement, the petitioner has filed M.F.A.No.7953/2012 whereas the Insurance Company has filed M.F.A.No.6697/2012 pleading that excess compensation is awarded and it requires reduction.

¶39

Heard the arguments of Sri.R.Kalyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶40

Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶41

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was a cleaner in the Canter, suffered two major fractures and medical evidence is placed to explain the disability, but Tribunal has not assessed the functional disability, only considered the physical disability. The compensation awarded under different heads is inadequate and income taken at

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:30547 MFA No. 7953 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6697 of 2012

¶43

Rs.4,500/- is on the lower side and sought for enhancement.

¶44

Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the petitioner has suffered fracture of both bones of left leg, he was aged 42 years. Though the petitioner claims that he was the cleaner, the owner of the vehicle has not admitted the same nor any evidence is placed on record to that extent. Though the petitioner was under hospitalization for 24 days, he was treated in a Government hospital, money spent towards treatment was only Rs.12,613/-, but the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-, which is on the higher side. The compensation awarded towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities and discomfort, for the accident of the year 2010 is totally an exaggeration; incidental expenses for 24 days of inpatient and food and nourishment and attendant and travelling charges at Rs.25,000/- is imaginary, loss of earning even if taken into consideration the limb disability at 32.3%, it shall not be

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:30547 MFA No. 7953 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6697 of 2012

¶46

more than 10%. Hence, she sought for reduction of the compensation.

¶47

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on behalf of both sides and also perused the materials on record.

¶48

The accident in question is not in dispute. The material on record shows that the incident took place on 24.11.2010 at about 9.15 a.m. involving the Canter and fracture of both bones of left leg suffered by the petitioner. Petitioner has not placed any evidence to show that he was Cleaner in the said Canter. Therefore, his avocation shall be taken as a person with no proof of income. In the year 2010, a person with no proof of income will earn not less than Rs.5,500/- and accordingly notional income has to be considered. The discharge summary shows that the petitioner was under hospitalization from 24.11.2010 to 17.12.2010, i.e., for a period of 24 days, he was attended by an attendant, spent money for travelling and food and nourishment.

¶49

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:30547 MFA No. 7953 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6697 of 2012

¶50

Accordingly, he is entitled for reimbursement of the said expenses.

¶51

Dr.S.Ramachandra is the Doctor, who assessed

¶52

the disability of 33.3% to the limb, 16% to the whole body. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is stiffness in the left knee of the petitioner, he could not climb the stairs and unable to do any work and whole body disability of 16% is not functional disability, cannot be accepted, as there is no evidence to show that the petitioner is unable to do dayto-day work. The whole body disability assessed at 16% cannot be accepted, it should be taken at 13%. Accordingly, the petitioner has to be awarded compensation for loss of amenities. The petitioner will be laid-up for a minimum of six months for the nature of injuries being a person with no proof of income. Therefore, the assessment of compensation in a claim petition of this nature cannot be a bonanza nor it can be a peanut, but it should be just compensation to the

¶53

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:30547 MFA No. 7953 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6697 of 2012

¶54

victims. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under following heads:

¶55

Sl. No.	Particulars	Rs.
1	Pain and sufferings	60,000/-
2	Medical expenses	20,000/-
3	loss of Amenities and future happiness	50,000/-
4	Future medical expenses	20,000/-
5	Loss of income during treatment period	18,000/-
6	Towards food, conveyance, attendant & nourishment	25,000/-
7	Loss of future earnings	1,20,960/-
	Total	3,13,960/-

¶56

Having regard to the nature of injuries, as the petitioner requires future treatment, he has to be compensated with Rs.50,000/towards pain and suffering; Rs.12,613/- spent towards medical bills shall be reimbursed; Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities and discomfort; attendant charges of Rs.4,600/-; food and nourishment Rs.5,000/-; travelling expenses Rs.3,000/-; loss of income during laid up period of six months at Rs.5,500/- per month will be Rs.33,000/- and

¶57

future medical expenses has to be considered at Rs.20,000/- for removal of implant. Towards loss of

¶58

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:30547 MFA No. 7953 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6697 of 2012

¶59

earning due to disability is concerned, he was aged 42 years, the applicable multiplier is '14' with 13% whole body disability. Then it comes to Rs.5,500/-x12x14x13% = Rs.1,20,120/-. The compensation is tabled as hereunder:

¶60

Sl. No.	Particulars	Rs.
1	Pain and sufferings	50,000/-
2	Medical expenses	12,613/-
3	loss of Amenities and future happiness	40,000/-
4	Future medical expenses	20,000/-
5	Loss of income during treatment period	33,000/-
6	Towards food, conveyance, attendant & nourishment	12,600/-
7	Loss of future earnings	1,20,120/-
	Total	2,88,333/-
	Less: compensation awarded by the Tribunal	3,13,960/-
	Reduced compensation	25,627/-

¶61

Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.2,88,333/- as against Rs.3,13,960/-, thereby the compensation is reduced by Rs.25,627/-.

¶62

There is no dispute regarding liability on the part of the Insurance Company to pay compensation. Hence, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company merits

¶63

10 -

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:30547 MFA No. 7953 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6697 of 2012

¶65

consideration and the appeal filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits. In the result, the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

(i) M.F.A.No.7953/2012 filed by the petitioner is dismissed.;

¶68

(ii) M.F.A.No.6697/2012 filed by the Insurance Company is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified;

¶69

(iii) The petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,88,333/as against Rs.3,13,960/awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization, excluding interest on future medical expenses;

¶70

(v) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment;

¶71

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:30547 MFA No. 7953 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 6697 of 2012

¶72

(vi) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursal as

¶73

per the orders of the Tribunal, along with records.

¶74

SD/(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA) JUDGE

¶75

KNM

¶76

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Sri Maregowda S/O Puttaiah v. Mohammad Hussain S/O Hayanth Sab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Maregowda S/O Puttaiah v. Mohammad Hussain S/O Hayanth Sab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B Vinod Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri Mallappa Vs Suresh

Sayeda Najumu Saher Vs Sri. Manjappa M Mallapur

Sri Suryanarayanappa S/O Venkatappa Vs Sri Chalapathi S/O Late K M Chowdappa

Sureshachari S/O Krishnappa Vs Nagaraja R S/O Rangappa

Sri. Anandachari Vs Sri. P. Sampathu