Partly allowed

S Chandan v. Smt. Munirathnamma

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2024MFA/8251/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant in a 2015 motor accident appeal sought enhancement of Tribunal compensation. Court enhanced pain and suffering, loss of amenities, laid-up period and conveyance heads, set aside the Tribunal's exoneration of the insurer over expired registration, holding insurer liable for total compensation of Rs.2,25,500/- with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.2,25,500/- with 6% p.a. interest; insurer directed to deposit within two months; insurer's exoneration set aside.

S Chandan Vs Smt. Munirathnamma — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:45617 MFA No. 8251 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8251 OF 2018

¶6

(MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

S CHANDAN S/O SHIVALINGAIAH R/A NO.92/95, HOSA ROAD SARASWATHI BUILDING PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BENGALURU.

¶9

PERMANENT R/O BELAGUMBA VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK., RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O GOPINATH S C NO.109, III CROSS JANASHAKTHI NAGAR HOSAKEREHALLI

¶15

BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU-85.

¶16

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD MOTOR DEALER DIVISION 6^TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560007 BY ITS MANAGER

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.A.RAMAKRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; VIDE ORDER DATED:03.09.2024., NOTICE TO R-1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:45617 MFA No. 8251 of 2018

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.4840/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-15), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Being dissatisfied with the award of compensation of Rs.1,08,500/-, the claimant is in this appeal seeking enhancement.

¶24

The occurrence of the accident and the liability to pay compensation by the Insurer are not in dispute.

¶25

The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that P.W.4 was examined and he had stated that on a medical examination of the claimant, he was found to be normal. The Tribunal has also noticed that the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and he has successfully withstood. In the cross-examination and

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45617 MFA No. 8251 of 2018

¶27

he had given perfect answers and therefore, the medical evidence that he had certain effects due to head injury cannot be accepted. In my view, this finding of the Tribunal that the claimant had recovered from his injuries cannot be found fault with and, therefore, refusal to award any compensation towards ‘loss of future earnings’ cannot be found fault with.

¶28

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- each towards ‘pain and sufferings’ and ‘loss of amenities’. Since the evidence on record indicates that claimant had suffered a head injury and was hospitalized for 12 days in five different hospitals, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards ‘pain and sufferings’ and Rs.50,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities.

¶29

The Tribunal has taken the laid-up period as two months. In my view, it would be appropriate to treat the laid-up period as four months and having regard

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:45617 MFA No. 8251 of 2018

¶31

to the fact that the accident was of the year 2015, the notional income as determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is Rs.9,000/-. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to Rs.36,000/(Rs.9,000/- x 4 months).

¶32

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/towards ‘conveyance and diet’ and the same is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-, in view of the fact that claimant is hospitalsed for 12 days.

¶33

As regards Rs.14,500/- awarded towards ‘medical expenses’, Rs.10,000/- awarded towards ‘future medical expenditure’, and Rs.20,000/- awarded towards ‘physical impairment’ in my view, the same are just and proper and are accordingly affirmed.

¶34

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

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45617 MFA No. 8251 of 2018

¶36

Sl. No.	Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
1.	Pain and sufferings	20,000/-	75,000/-
2.	Physical impairment	20,000/-	20,000/-
3.	Medical expenses	14,500/-	14,500/-
4.	Loss of income during the laid up period	14,000/-	36,000/-
5.	Conveyance, nourishment and nutritious food	10,000/-	20,000/-
6.	Loss of amenities in life	20,000/-	50,000/-
7.	Future medical expenditure	10,000/-	10,000/-
	Total	1,08,500/-	2,25,500/-

¶37

As far as liability is concerned, the Tribunal has exonerated the insurer of all liability on the ground that the validity of the registration of the insured vehicle had expired. It is not in dispute that the insurer had insured the vehicle as on the date of the accident. The question as to whether the vehicle

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:45617 MFA No. 8251 of 2018

¶39

registration had expired or not would have no relevance insofar as the liability of the insurer is concerned. If the registration of the vehicle had expired, the owner of the vehicle would suffer a liability to pay the penalty. But, so long as the insurer had issued a policy covering its use as a motor vehicle, the insurer cannot escape its liability. Consequently, the finding with regard to exonerating the insurer is set aside and the insurer is held to be liable to pay the compensation.

¶40

Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,25,500/- as against Rs.1,08,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶41

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.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:45617 MFA No. 8251 of 2018

¶44

The other aspects of the Award of the Tribunal

¶45

remain undisturbed.

¶46

This appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part .

¶47

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶48

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

S Chandan v. Smt. Munirathnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Chandan v. Smt. Munirathnamma

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. H. S. Yashaswini Vs Sri. Rohith. H. S.

Sri Marigowda @ Mariyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Pallavi. a. J. Vs Smt. Venkamma

Sri. Kumar Vs Sri. C. Nagappa

Sri. Kandan N Vs Sri. R. Paramesh

Sri Ravikumar Vs Sri Chandrashekar v Bhat