Partly allowed

B Veerabhadraiah v. Mahanthaiah

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2024MFA/7968/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Waterman injured falling from a rashly driven JCB appealed seeking enhancement of motor accident compensation. Court enhanced the award from Rs.80,889/- to Rs.1,24,565/-, adding future medical expenses, higher loss of income and loss of amenities, granting Rs.43,676/- enhancement with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.43,676/- with 6% p.a. interest from date of petition till deposit, excluding interest on Rs.10,000/- future medical expenses; insurer to deposit within eight weeks.

B Veerabhadraiah Vs Mahanthaiah — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:31192 MFA No. 7968 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7968 OF 2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

B.VEERABHADRAIH S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS WATERMAN OF PANCHAYAT R/O BYRAPUR, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMGALORE DISTRICT-577134.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI M.S.HOSMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MAHANTHAIAH S/O NAGAIAH AGE: MAJOR, DRIVER JCB Digitally signed by PRAJWAL A R/O CHANDONI VILLAGE Location: HIGH COURT LINGASGUR TALUK OF KARNATAKA RAICHUR DISTRICT-584140.

¶13

N.C.MOHANKUMAR S/O CHANNAIAH AGE: MAJOR, OWNER OF JCB, R/O NITTUR, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572211.

¶14

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER BRANCH OFFICE EAST WINGH

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:31192 MFA No. 7968 of 2013

¶17

5^TH FLOOR, 28 CENTENARY BUILDING M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI H.C.BETSUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 14.11.2013, NOTICE TO R1 AND R2)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.5.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.24/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MAMACT, TARIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

In this appeal, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and award dated 21.05.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.24/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MAMACT, Tarikere ('the Tribunal' for short).

¶25

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

¶26

Brief facts of the case are, on 02.04.2008 at about 2.15 p.m. in the Hariyannana Lake of Byrapura Village,

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31192 MFA No. 7968 of 2013

¶28

when the petitioner was giving drinking water to the respondent No.1, the driver of the JCB engaged in the land excavation moved the same in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of which the petitioner who was getting down from the JCB has fell down from the mudguard of the JCB and sustained grievous injuries to his left leg, face and hands. The petitioner approached the Tribunal seeking compensation, claim was opposed by the respondents, the Tribunal by taking evidence and on hearing both the parties, by impugned judgment awarded the following compensation:-

¶29

01.	Pain & Suffering	Rs. 30,000/-
02.	Medical Expenses	Rs. 33,213/-
03.	For Food, Attendant & Conveyance Charges	Rs. 7,000/-
04.	Loss of Income	Rs. 5,676/-
05.	Loss of Amenities & Future Unhappiness	Rs. 5,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 80,889/-

¶30

Pleading inadequacy and seeking enhancement, the petitioner has filed this appeal on various grounds.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:31192 MFA No. 7968 of 2013

¶33

Heard Sri Hosmath M.S, learned counsel for

¶34

the petitioner and Sri H.C. Betsur, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶35

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working as a ‘Waterman’ of Doranalu Grama Panchayath. The petitioner was aged 29 years, has suffered fracture of left tibia and fibula and was under hospitalization from 03.04.2008 to 16.04.2008 and 03.09.2008 to 05.09.2008 and has traveled to Mangaluru on many occasions and spent huge amount for treatment. The disability certificate which is produced at Ex.P12 points out that petitioner has suffered 9% disability. However, the Tribunal has not awarded compensation for towards future medical expenses and sought for enhancement.

¶36

Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company has contended that petitioner is a permanent employee of the Grama Panchayath and the injury has not affected his work and there is no loss of earning, since he

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31192 MFA No. 7968 of 2013

¶38

continued his job in the Grama Panchayath. The Tribunal has considered the same and awarded compensation towards incidental expenses and supported the impugned judgment.

¶39

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

¶40

The accident in question is not in dispute. The medical records shows that the petitioner has suffered fracture of both the bones of left leg and was inpatient in Kasturaba Hospital, Manipal for a period of 14 days from 02.04.2008 to 16.04.2008 and from 03.09.2008 to 05.09.2008 for a period of 3 days and in all 17 days. P.W.3 is the Doctor, who has given evidence before the Court. His evidence points out only with regard to treatment given and his evidence did not refer to issue of disability certificate at Ex.P12 nor the petitioner suffering from disability on account of injuries.

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:31192 MFA No. 7968 of 2013

¶42

Ex.P12 is disability certificate issued by P.W.3 to the effect that petitioner has suffered 9% whole body disability. During the course of evidence, neither the petitioner nor the Medical Officer has spoken about the injury affecting future earning capacity of the petitioner. When the medical evidence did not point out the disability suffered by the petitioner at 9% referred to in Ex.P12, the same can only be taken into consideration for awarding compensation towards loss of amenities and discomfort.

¶43

The medical bills points out that a sum of Rs.33,213/- is spent by the petitioner and the same is retained as it is. Ex.P12 points out that there is a need for future medical treatment for removal of implant, future medical expenses is awarded at Rs.10,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.33,000/towards pain and suffering is just and proper. The petitioner was attended by a attendant for 17 days, money spent towards food and nourishment and he has traveled to Mangaluru for treatment and follow up and he has to be

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:31192 MFA No. 7968 of 2013

¶45

compensated with traveling expenses. Thus, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards food, attendant and conveyance charges.

¶46

The petitioner being a Waterman would have

¶47

laid up for a period of six months for his treatment and admittedly, his salary is Rs.1,892/- per month, loss of income is assessed at Rs.11,352/-. Towards loss of amenities and discomfort, Rs.30,000/is assessed.

¶48

There are no grounds to award compensation for loss of future earning for want of evidence. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to compensation as follows:-

¶49

1.	Pain and Suffering	Rs. 30,000/-
2.	Medical Expenses	Rs. 33,213/-
3.	Food, attendant and conveyance charges	Rs. 10,000/-
4.	Loss of income	Rs. 11,352/-
5.	Loss of amenities and discomfort	Rs. 30,000/-
6.	Future medical expenses	Rs. 10,000/-
	Total	Rs.1,24,565/-
	Less compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Rs. 80,889/-
	Enhanced compensation	Rs. 43,676/-

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:31192 MFA No. 7968 of 2013

¶51

It is the just compensation the petitioner is entitled

¶52

to in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence

¶53

appeal merits consideration, in the result, the following :-

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶56

(ii) The impugned judgment and award is modified.

¶57

(iii) The petitioner would be entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.43,676/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit, excluding interest on future medical expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

¶58

(iv) The insurance company has to deposit the compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

¶59

SD/(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA) JUDGE

¶60

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

B Veerabhadraiah v. Mahanthaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Veerabhadraiah v. Mahanthaiah

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

Kum Vijayalakshmi Vs a M Changappa

Master Nandeesh Vs Chand Pasha

Mrs Chandravathi Vs Mr Abu Saleha

Sri Santhosh Vs H P Lokesh

Smt Malathi C.K Vs M/S. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

V. Velumurugan Vs Smt. Kavitha L