Partly allowed

Sri Raju v. United India Insurance Co., Ltd.

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2024MFA/8375/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal partly, enhancing the compensation awarded for a motor accident. The Court corrected the notional income assumed by the Tribunal and awarded additional amounts for loss of income during the treatment period and loss of amenities.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation to Rs. 3,41,880/- with interest at 6% p.a. directed to be deposited by the insurer within six weeks.

Sri Raju Vs United India Insurance Co., Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:33742 MFA No. 8375 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8375 / 2018 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI RAJU, S/O HOTTE MADA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT HANUMANHANAGAR KABBAL, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, POSTAL ADDRESS: NO.14, 5^TH CROSS, RAJIVGANDHINAGAR, SUNKADAKATTE, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 091. (BY SRI GURUDEV PRASAD K.T., ADVOCATE)

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS HUB, VI FLOOR, KRISHNI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

SMT. SARASWATHI, W/O RAMACHANDRA, #146, FRIENDS COLONY, B.H.MOSQUE ROAD, HEGGANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 064, BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR T., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.V.SEENAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:33742 MFA No. 8375 of 2018

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.04.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.7493/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXXIII ACMM., MEMBER, MACT, (SCCH-5), BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Challenging judgment and award dated 05.04.2018 passed by VIII Additional Small Causes Judge & MACT (SCCH-5), Bengaluru ('Tribunal' for short), in MVC No.7493/2016, this appeal is filed.

¶23

Sri Gurudev Prasad.K.T., learned counsel for

¶24

appellant submitted that appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. On 26.10.2016 at about 5:15 P.M., when claimant was walking by side of Hegganahalli Main Road, Bengaluru, a Car bearing Registration no.KA-03-MH-2723, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him from backside. Due to same,

¶25

he sustained grievous injuries and was treated at Lakshmi Multispeciality Hospital, Bengaluru. Despite treatment and

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:33742 MFA No. 8375 of 2018

¶28

spending money, he did not recover completely and sustained permanent disability. It was submitted, at time of accident, he was aged 48 years and earning Rs.15,000/- per month from Panipuri business. Due to disability sustained, he had lost earning capacity. Therefore, he filed petition under Section 166 of MV Act against owner and Insurer of Car claiming compensation. On contest, wherein claim petition was opposed on all grounds, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself and one Dr.Santosh Kumar as P.W.1 & 2 respectively. Exhibits P.1 to 15 were got marked. Respondents did not lead any evidence.

¶29

On consideration, Tribunal answered issue no.1 in affirmative; issue no.2 in partly affirmative; and issue no.3 by allowing claim petition in part and holding claimant entitled for compensation of Rs.2,54,000/- with interest at 9% p.a., from date of claim petition till realization and holding respondent no.1 liable to pay same. Not satisfied with quantum of compensation, claimant is in appeal whereas insurer had accepted award and deposited compensation.

¶30

It was submitted, though claimant had stated that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from panipuri business,

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:33742 MFA No. 8375 of 2018

¶33

tribunal had without any justification, considered income at Rs.7,000/- which was on lower side. It was submitted, PW.2-Doctor had assessed permanent physical disability of left lower limb at 27.7% and whole body disability at 13.8%. But, tribunal assessed disability at 9% only and awarded inadequate compensation. It was submitted, award towards 'loss of amenities' was on lower side, while tribunal had not awarded any compensation towards 'loss of income during laid up period'. Even compensation awarded under other heads were inadequate and sought enhancement.

¶34

On other hand, Sri Mohan Kumar.T., learned counsel for insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted, since claimant did not place specific material on record, Tribunal rightly assessed income notionally. It was submitted, considering injuries sustained and evidence led, tribunal had assessed just compensation and there was no scope for enhancement. It was submitted, awarding interest at 9% p.a., was excessive and would offset any scope for enhancement.

¶35

It was further submitted, during cross-examination, it was elicited from P.W.2-Doctor that fractures had united and

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:33742 MFA No. 8375 of 2018

¶38

claimant was hail and healthy at time of discharge. Therefore, sought dismissal of appeal.

¶39

Heard learned counsel on both side and perused impugned judgment and award.

¶40

From above, since claimant is in appeal for enhancement, only point that would arise for consideration is:

¶41

"Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?"

¶42

As noted above, occurrence of accident, involvement of insured vehicle, coverage of insurance at time of accident, claimant sustaining injuries in said accident and liability on part of insurer to pay compensation are not in dispute. Though claimant stated that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by selling panipuri, same was not substantiated. In absence of proof of income, tribunal was justified in considering notional income. But notional income for year 2015 being Rs.9,500/- per month, tribunal was not justified in taking at Rs.7,000/-. Same has to be taken at Rs.9,500/- per month.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:33742 MFA No. 8375 of 2018

¶45

Tribunal awarded Rs.80,000/- towards 'medical

¶46

expenses' against bills produced. Since there is complete reimbursement, there would be no scope for enhancement. Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards 'food, nourishment and miscellaneous expenses'. Taking note of in-patient treatment of five days, amount awarded would be adequate and does not call for enhancement. Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/towards pain and suffering. Taking note of fact that claimant sustained two fractures, same would also appear just and proper and does not call for enhancement. But, tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards 'loss of income during period of treatment'. Normally, factures take about three months to heal. Taking same as period of lay off, claimant would be entitled for compensation of Rs.28,500/- (Rs.9,500*3). Claimant is aged 48 years and sustained two fractures. Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'loss of amenities', which would be grossly inadequate. Therefore, it is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-.

¶47

In so far as permanent physical disability, P.W.2Doctor deposed that he had treated claimant, who had sustained segmental fracture of left tibia and distal fibula

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:33742 MFA No. 8375 of 2018

¶50

fracture. Treatment involved CRIF and IMIL nail to left tibia done on 12.06.2016 and claimant discharged on 30.10.2016. Thereafter, claimant was on follow up treatment. Though PW.2-Doctor stated that there was terminal restriction of movement of left knee and ankle, extent of restriction is not disclosed in affidavit. He has, however, assessed disability at 27.7% to limb and 13.8% to whole body. It is also seen during cross-examination, Insurer elicited that fractures are united. Taking note of same, Tribunal has found fit to consider functional disability at 9%. I do not see any good or sufficient ground to interfere with assessment of disability. Thus, future loss of income would be as follows:

¶51

Rs.9,500*9%1213 = Rs.1,33,380/-.

¶52

Thus total compensation can be tabulated as

¶53

follows:

¶54

SL.NO.	PARTICULARS	AMOUNT
1.	Medical Expenses	Rs.80,000/-
2.	Food, nourishment & miscellaneous expenses	Rs.15,000/-
3.	Futureloss of income	Rs.1,33,380/-
4.	Pain and suffering	Rs.50,000/-
5.	Loss ofamenities	Rs.35,000/-
6.	Loss of income during laid up period	Rs.28,500/-
	TOTAL	Rs.3,41,880/-
LESS	: Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Rs.2,54,000/-
ENH	ANCEDCOMPENSATION	Rs.87,880/-

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:33742 MFA No. 8375 of 2018

¶57

Thus there would be enhancement of compensation of Rs.87,880/-. Point for consideration is answered

¶58

partly in affirmative as above. Consequently, following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) Appeal is allowed in part ;

¶61

(ii) Claimant is entitled for compensation of

¶62

Rs.3,41,880/- as against Rs.2,54,000/- awarded by Tribunal;

¶63

(iii) There is enhancement of compensation of Rs.87,880/-, which shall carry interest at rate of 6% p.a., from date of claim petition till deposit;

¶64

(iv) Insurer is directed to deposit same before Tribunal within six weeks; and

¶65

(v) Upon deposit, enhanced compensation is ordered to be released to claimant.

¶66

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶67

¶68

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Sri Raju v. United India Insurance Co., Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Raju v. United India Insurance Co., Ltd.

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 Vijayalakshmi Vs Sri v Lakshminarayana

Smt Bhavya K Vs Sri Madhusudan M Krishnamurthy

Smt Bylamma Vs Sri Hanumantharaju

Sri. P v Balaji Ganes Vs Sri. a G Munivenkata Gowda

Sri Rudresh Vs Sri Annappa B

Sri. Venkataramanappa Vs Sri. Kiran. S