Partly allowed

Sannakariyappa v. Rajanna

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2024MFA/8415/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant's appeal against MACT award of Rs.1,05,085 for splenic injury sustained in a road accident, with 50% contributory negligence fixed. The High Court found no amount was awarded for loss of earnings during laid-up period and pain and suffering was grossly low. Compensation enhanced by Rs.50,000 with 50% liability and 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs.50,000; respondents liable for 50% (Rs.25,000); insurer to deposit with 6% interest within eight weeks; appellant permitted to withdraw entire amount.

Sannakariyappa Vs Rajanna — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38075 MFA No. 8415 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8415 OF 2022(MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SANNAKARIYAPPA, S/O DASAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT AJJAIAHNAHATTY, INDUSKATTE, MAJURE, YALLADAKERE POST, HIRIYUR TALUK.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. RANGEGOWDA N.R., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

RAJANNA

¶12

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

S/O GANGAMALIYAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O MAHALAXMI BADAVANE (EXTENSION), C.N. HALLY TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MMK COMPLEX, P.J. EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE-577 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 13.04.2022 PASSED IN MVC

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38075 MFA No. 8415 of 2022

¶19

NO.989/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND ADDITIONAL MACT, HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA, 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 DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Heard Sri.Rangegowda N.R, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand learned

¶24

counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

¶25

Challenge in this appeal is the order that is rendered by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga in M.V.C. No.989/2018 dated 13.04.2022.

¶26

This is a claimant's appeal. As against the claim for Rs.9,00,000/-, the tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.1,05,085/- as compensation. Also attributing contributory negligence to the extent of 50% on part of the appellant, directed respondent No.2-

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38075 MFA No. 8415 of 2022

¶28

Insurance Company to pay 50% of the award amount i.e., Rs.52,542.5/-.

¶29

Arguing the matter, Sri.Rangegowda N.R, learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant sustained

¶30

two grievous injuries due to the accident and took treatment. The appellant could not attend his normal pursuits for a long period. However, the tribunal did not award any sum as compensation towards loss of earnings during laid up period. Learned counsel also contends that

¶31

the compensation awarded under all other heads is also grossly low and therefore this appeal is filed.

¶32

A perusal of record reveals that the tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.1,05,085/- as compensation divided under following

¶33

heads:-

¶34

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Pain and sufferings	15,000-00
Loss of amenities	10,000-00
Loss of future earnings	20,000-00
Medical expenses	50,085-00
Attendant and	10,000-00

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:38075 MFA No. 8415 of 2022

¶37

miscellaneous expenses Total 1,05,085-00

¶38

The submission that is made by Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the appellant did not choose to examine either the doctor who treated him or any other specialist who assessed the disability. Thus, in the absence of any proof with regard to the aspect of permanent physical disability, the tribunal awarded justifiable sum as compensation under all other heads and thus the award needs no interference.

¶39

It is not in dispute that the appellant took treatment as inpatient from 19.03.2018 to 26.03.2018 at SSIMS Hospital, Davanagere for the grade-III splenic injury and mild to moderate Haemoperitoneum that were sustained by him. Though the appellant contended that as an agriculturist he was earning Rs.3,00,000/-, no substantial proof was produced before the Tribunal to that effect. However, considering the fact that the appellant was aged about 25 years by the date of accident, which is

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38075 MFA No. 8415 of 2022

¶41

a right age of earning and as the amount awarded under the head pain and suffering i.e., Rs.15,000/- is grossly low

¶42

and as no amount is awarded under the head loss of earnings during laid up period, this Court is of the view that a sum of Rs.50,000/- is required to be awarded in addition to the sum that is awarded by the tribunal through the impugned order. The said sum includes the loss sustained due to incapacity to work during laid up period and also for pain and suffering.

¶43

Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶46

ii. The compensation that is awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga through orders in M.V.C. No.989/2018 dated 13.04.2022 is enhanced by Rs.50,000/-.

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38075 MFA No. 8415 of 2022

¶48

iii. Liability is fixed upon respondents to the extent of 50% of the enhanced amount i.e., Rs.25,000/-

¶49

iv. The 2^nd respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced sum along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶50

v. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

¶51

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

¶53

Sannakariyappa v. Rajanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sannakariyappa v. Rajanna

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

Sri.Sriram Vs the Managing Director

Suhas N Vs Rakesh H R

Sri. M. Narayanappa Vs M. Manjunath

Jithendra Vs Keshavamurthy. K. R.

Smt Nagamma Vs Shri R Srinivas

Shanthabai @ Sahanthavva Goundi Vs M P Karthikeyan