Partly allowed

Smt. Kotramma v. Manjunath. G

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2024MFA/8160/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor Accident Claim Appeal where the Tribunal had previously awarded compensation. The Court noted a joint calculation memo between parties seeking an enhancement of Rs. 1,03,560/-, which was agreed upon. The High Court allowed the appeal in part to enhance the compensation accordingly with interest and directed the insurer to deposit the amount.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs. 1,03,560/-; interest at 6% p.a. from date of petition till date of deposit; Third respondent directed to deposit amount within six weeks.

Smt. Kotramma Vs Manjunath. G — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:21035-DB MFA No. 8160 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8160 OF 2019 (MV-I)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. KOTRAMMA W/O. LATE SHANTHAVEERAIAH.M AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDENT OF BELLUDI VILLAGE HARIHAR TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 601.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI. RAJATH .S – ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N PRAVEEN KUMAR - ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

MANJUNATH. G S/O. PARVATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING REG. NO.KA-17-C-2448 GOULERA HATTI GRAMA VILLAGE POTHALAKATTI, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT-583 131.

¶16

NAGARAJU. P S/O. MARULASIDDANAGOWDA AGE: MAJOR OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REG. NO.KA-17-C-2448 R/O. HUCHENGI DURGA VILLAGE HARAPANAHALLI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT-583 131.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:21035-DB MFA No. 8160 of 2019

¶19

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MELAGERE PLAZA M.C.C. "B" BLOCK DENTAL COLLEGE ROAD DAVANAGERE-577 004 BY ITS MANAGER.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2; SRI. ASHOK N PATIL – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

¶21

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.06.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 327/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HARIHARA AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED.

¶22

THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA . J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard Sri Rajath S who represents Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel who is on record for the appellant as well as Sri Ashok N Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No 3.

¶25

This appeal is preferred challenging the order

¶26

that is rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21035-DB MFA No. 8160 of 2019

¶28

Harihara in MVC No.327/2018 dated 27.06.2019. The claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.3,31,787/- under different heads as detailed under:

¶29

Sl. No	Heads	Amount
1	Loss of future earning capacity	Rs.1,55,520
2	Pain and sufferings	Rs. 30,000
3	Loss of amenities	Rs. 15,000
4	Medical expenses	Rs. 97,267
5	Food, nourishment and attendant charges	Rs. 4,500
6	Towards future medical expenses	Rs. 25,000
7	Loss of income during laid up period from 31.12.2017 to 11.01.2018	Rs. 4,500
	Total	Rs.3,31,787

¶30

During the course of arguments, when the

¶31

learned counsel for the appellant states that the amount awarded as compensation is grossly low, Sri Ashok N Patil, learned counsel representing respondent No 3 submits that the Tribunal has arrived at just conclusion but there

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:21035-DB MFA No. 8160 of 2019

¶33

may be marginal enhancement. At this juncture, on the intervention of the Court, both learned counsel i.e., learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent filed joint calculation memo by which it is agreed upon that the enhancement may be to an extent of Rs.1,03,560/-.

¶34

We are of the view that there is nothing to interfere with the understanding arrived at between both the parties and in respect of the enhancement. Thus, taking into consideration the memo thus filed, the appeal

¶35

is accordingly disposed of. Thus, the following :

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶38

ii) The amount awarded as compensation through

¶39

the impugned order in favour of the appellant is enhanced

¶40

by Rs.1,03,560/-.

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:21035-DB MFA No. 8160 of 2019

¶42

iii) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at

¶43

the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶44

iv) The 3^rd respondent is directed to deposit the

¶45

enhanced sum within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶46

v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to

¶47

withdraw the entire amount.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

Smt. Kotramma v. Manjunath. G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kotramma v. Manjunath. G

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

The New India Vs Master Shobith

National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri. U.P Verghese

S Pratheesha Vs Sudhindra Shekar

Gopalakrishna a Vs Smt Anju Chauhan

Touheed Pasha Vs Inspector

Chris Pride Logo Vs State of Karnataka