Partly allowed

Smt Vimala v. Murali R

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2024MFA/8051/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident claim appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and challenging the insurer's exoneration for want of the policy. The court held the insurer liable since the vehicle was covered by a valid policy on the accident date, reassessed disability at 10% and notional income at Rs.9,500, and raised total compensation to Rs.3,60,000 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Insurer held liable to pay enhanced compensation of Rs.3,60,000 with 6% p.a. interest from petition date till realisation, deposited within two months.

Smt Vimala Vs Murali R — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:50115 MFA No. 8051 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8051 OF 2018 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT.VIMALA W/O PRABHAKARA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS OCCUPATION COOLIE R/AT KAMMACHI VILLAGE, GARTHIKERE, HOSANAGAR TALUK-577 418 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. K.V.SATEESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

MURALI R., S/O RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.326 AKG COLONY IN FRONT OF MUJ COLLEGE, CHANNASHANDRA, KADUGODI POST, MAHADEVAPURA-560 048 BANGALORE

¶13

BHARATHI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DODDENAGUNDI, BANGALORE-560 037

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:50115 MFA No. 8051 of 2018

¶17

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29/12/2017, PASSED IN MVC NO.225/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND AMACT, SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT SAGAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

The claimant is in appeal questioning the exoneration of liability of the insurer and also seeking enhancement.

¶22

The Tribunal had exonerated the insurer on the ground that the claimant had not produced the insurance policy to show that the offending vehicle was insured.

¶23

It is now admitted that the insurance policy was furnished by the claimant and, on verification, it is

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50115 MFA No. 8051 of 2018

¶25

found that as on the date of the accident the offending vehicle was in fact covered with the policy of insurance.

¶26

In that view of the matter, the finding as regards liability is set aside and it is held that the insurer is liable for payment of compensation.

¶27

As far as liability is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded that the claimant has suffered a fracture of the tibia and since the doctor had stated that he had 15% disability to the particular lower limb, it would be appropriate to assess the whole disability at 5%.

¶28

Having regard to the fact that the claimant was a coolie aged 37 years and he had suffered a fracture of tibia, it would be appropriate to assess the whole body disability at 10%.

¶29

The Tribunal has adopted the notional income of Rs.6,000/- per month as there was no proof of the actual income of the claimant. As the Karnataka

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50115 MFA No. 8051 of 2018

¶31

State Legal Services Authority has determined the notional income as Rs.9,500/- for the accident of the year 2016, it would be appropriate to determine the notional income of the claimant at Rs.9,500/-. Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,71,000/- (Rs.9,500/- X 12 X 15 X 10%) towards ‘loss of future earnings’.

¶32

The Tribunal has award a sum of Rs.50,000/towards ‘pain and suffering’ and Rs.25,000/- towards ‘loss of future amenities’, in my view, it would be appropriate to enhance the said sums to Rs.60,000/and Rs.40,000/- respectively.

¶33

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/towards ‘medical expenses’, which is based on documentary evidence and is hence affirmed.

¶34

The Tribunal has award a sum of Rs.23,000/towards ‘attendant charges, nourishment and conveyance’. Since the claimant was hospital for

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:50115 MFA No. 8051 of 2018

¶36

more than 30 days, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.30,000/towards ‘conveyance,

¶37

nourishment and attended charges’.

¶38

The Tribunal has taken the laid-up period as 6 months, since the income is now taken as Rs.9,500/, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.57,000/- towards ‘loss of income during laid-up period’.

¶39

Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and the following sums are awarded as

¶40

compensation:

¶41

Sl. No.	Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
1.	Pain and sufferings	50,000/-	60,000/-
2.	Loss of income during treatment period	36,000/-	57,000/-
3.	Medical expenses	2,000/-	2,000/-
4.	Loss of future earning	54,000/-	1,71,000/-

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:50115 MFA No. 8051 of 2018

¶43

5.	Loss of future amenities	25,000/-	40,000/-
6.	Attendant charges, nourishment, diet and conveyance	23,000/-	30,000/-
	Total	01,90,000/-	3,60,000/-

¶44

Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled for compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- as against Rs.1,90,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶45

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶46

This appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part .

¶47

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶48

GSR

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Smt Vimala v. Murali R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Vimala v. Murali R

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 Khateeja Vs B Dayananda

Pushpa B L Vs Reliance GlC Ltd.

Syed Usman Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Sri Krishnaiah Vs Sri Chandrashekaraiah

Smt Sabeeha Parveen Vs Sri Javed Ahmed

Smt Savitha Patil Vs Sri Manjunath D B