Partly allowed

Sri Manjunath v. Mrs Priya

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2024MFA/86/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous first appeal, the High Court of Karnataka enhanced the motor accident compensation award against the insurer. The Court re-assessed the petitioner's income and disability based on serious head injuries and surgery.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs. 23,26,200 with interest at 6% p.a.; 50% to be paid to the mother and 50% invested in a Fixed Deposit.

Sri Manjunath Vs Mrs Priya — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:45980-DB MFA No.86/2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.86/2022 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. MANJUNATH S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDING AT MARIKUPPAM VILLAGE ANDERSONPET POST BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563113.

¶10

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM

¶11

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE APELLANT REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. NARASAMMA IN VIEW OF THE APPELLANT IS UNSOUND MIND UNABLE TO CONTEST THE APPEAL.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH B, ADV.,)

¶15

AND:

¶16

MRS. PRIYA D/O RAJAN MAJOR (AGE NOT KNOW TO APPELLANT) R/AT 2ND CROSS BALAKRISHNA LAYOUT PRIYA RAJAN COTTAGE MINIBRAHIM ROAD ROBERTSON PET, KGF KARNATAKA STATE-563112.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:45980-DB MFA No.86/2022

¶19

THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KRISHI BHAVAN, 5TH AND 6TH FLOOR NRUPATHUNGA ROAD HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. JANARDHANA REDDY, ADV., FOR R2 V/O/DTD:06.01.2022 NOTICE TO R1 D/W)

¶22

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11^TH DAY OF JUNE 2019, PASSED IN MVC 1134/2017, BY THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VIII ADDL. SCJ & XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-5), AND ENHANCE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED IN THIS APPEAL OR BY AWARDING SUCH SUM THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT FEELS JUST AND REASONABLE AND TO PASS SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL WITH COST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

( PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

¶28

Challenging the judgment and award in MVC No.1134/2017 passed by the Court of VIII Addl. Small Causes Judge and MACT (SCCH-5), Bengaluru, claimant has filed this appeal.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:45980-DB MFA No.86/2022

¶31

The appellant was the claimant, respondents in this appeal were respondents before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶32

The injured - claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the accidental injuries and disability suffered by him in the road accident that occurred on 06.02.2016 at 7 p.m. It was contended that the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle TVS Centra bearing registration No.KA-03 EN-3654 as pillion rider which was ridden by his friend Murali. It was further contended that the rider of the motorcycle was proceeding slowly on the extreme left side in front of Mahindra Showroom, Gowthamnagar, KGF Kuppam Main Road, Robertsonpet, KGF. At that time, scooter bearing registration No.KA-08 R-0634 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motor cycle due to which the claimant fell down, sustained grievous head injuries and started bleeding from the ear. He was provided treatment initially at General Hospital, KGF and thereafter, at NIMHANS, Bengaluru. It was also contended that the claimant was aged about 27

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:45980-DB MFA No.86/2022

¶35

years, was doing bar bending work and earning Rs.15,000/p.m. Due to the accident, the claimant suffered physical disability and is unable to carry out his avocation. Hence, he filed claim petition.

¶36

Respondent No.1, though appeared did not file any written statement nor contested the proceedings. Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company filed statement of objections denying the occurrence of the accident due to the negligence of the rider of the scooter bearing registration No.KA-08 R-0634, further denied that there was head-on collision. It was contended that the rider of the motorcycle on which the claimant was proceeding was negligent and the claim petition is liable to be rejected for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. the owner of TVS Centra bearing registration KA-03 EN-3654 and the insurer of the said vehicle. They denied the age, income and avocation of the claimant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶37

The Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties. Dr.Vikas V. has been examined as PW-1, mother of the claimant as PW-2, one eye witness to the incident as PW-3 and

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45980-DB MFA No.86/2022

¶39

got marked Exs.P1 to P18. Respondents did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the claim petition assessing the income of the claimant at Rs.7,000/- p.m., disability at 45% to the whole body, awarded compensation of Rs.6,05,000/- under the head of loss of future earning due to disability and in total, awarded compensation of Rs.8.06,000/with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. Being aggrieved, the claimant is in appeal seeking higher compensation.

¶40

Sri.Chandrashekariah B., learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal committed grave error in assessing the income and disability of the claimant. It is submitted that the claimant was doing bar bending work and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. However, the Tribunal assessed his income notionally at Rs.7,000/- p.m. Similarly, the Tribunal assessed 45% disability which is contrary to the evidence of PW-1. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded

¶41

meager compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of income during laid up period.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:45980-DB MFA No.86/2022

¶44

Hence, he seeks to enhance the compensation appropriately by allowing the appeal.

¶45

Per contra, Sri.Janardhana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the claimant did not produce any evidence with regard to the income. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly assessed his income notionally at Rs.7,000/- p.m. It is submitted that PW-1 has assessed the disability of the claimant at 83.48% and cognitive disability at 68% and in the cross-examination, the said witness has admitted that the condition of the claimant has improved. Hence, assessment of disability by the Tribunal is correct which does not call for any modification. It is also submitted that award of compensation under the conventional heads is based on medical evidence available on record and the nature of treatment provided to him which also does not call for any enhancement. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the appeal.

¶46

Considering the rival submissions of the parties and examining the materials on record including the Trial Court records, the point that arises for consideration is “ Whether

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:45980-DB MFA No.86/2022

¶49

the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference”?

¶50

ANALYSIS

¶51

It is not in dispute that when claimant was proceeding as pillion rider on motorcycle TVS Centra bearing No.KA-03 EN-3654, the rider of Scooter bearing registration No.KA-08 R-0634 rode the same in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The pleading and evidence on record indicate that the claimant was provided treatment initially at General Hospital, KGF and later at NIMHANS, Bengaluru. PW-2 mother of the claimant deposed in support of the claim petition. The evidence of PW-2 is nothing but reiteration of averments of

¶52

the claim petition with regard to age, income, avocation, disability and liability of Insurance Company. The Tribunal, considering the avocation of the claimant notionally assessed his income at Rs.7,000/- p.m. We are of the considered view that the assessment of income by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Keeping in mind the prevailing wage rates, cost of living for the year 2016, the age and nature of avocation of the claimant, we are of the considered view that ends of justice

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:45980-DB MFA No.86/2022

¶55

would be met if the income of the claimant is assessed notionally at Rs.9,500/- p.m.

¶56

So far as disability of the claimant, the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 45% to the whole body. The wound certificate at Ex.P7 indicates that the claimant suffered left frontal and temporal hemorrhagic contusion with mass effect on left lateral ventricle and effacement of bilateral basal cisterns, fractures in left maxilla, left lateral wall of orbit, sphenoid bone and left squamous temporal bone, for which he underwent left fronto temoroparietal decompressive craniectomy, evacuation of contusion, lax augmentative duraplasty and the bone flap was kept in abdomen. The said injuries of the claimant are grievous in nature. The discharge summaries at Exs.P8 to P11 corroborate the contents of Ex.P7.

¶57

The claimant examined Dr.Vikas V, Associate Professor of Neuro Surgery, NIMHANS, Bengaluru. In his affidavit evidence, he has assessed the disability of the claimant, explained the treatment undergone by the claimant and disability suffered by him. He assessed overall disability at 83.48%. The said witness has been cross-examined by the

¶58

¶59

NC: 2024:KHC:45980-DB MFA No.86/2022

¶60

Insurance Company at length. However, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1. Claimant has also examined PW-2 to support his claim that the accident was due to the negligence of the offending scooter. We have reappreciated the oral evidence of PW-1, perused wound certificate at Ex.P7, discharge summaries at Exs.P8 to P11, medical bills at Ex.P13 and prescriptions at Ex.P14. We are of the considered view that the claimant has suffered severe head injury and there was left frontal temporal hemorrhagic contusion with mass effect on left lateral ventricle and effacement of bilateral basal cisterns and there is fracture of left maxilla and left lateral wall of orbit. The claimant has also undergone surgery at NIMHANS. The aforesaid injuries are serious in nature.

¶61

In the cross-examination, PW-1 has denied the suggestion that the claimant is aged about 26 years and there is chance of 100% recovery. He has also deposed that brain surgery was conducted on the claimant. Considering the evidence available on record, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if we re-assess the whole body disability at 75% for the purpose of determination

¶62

10 -

¶63

NC: 2024:KHC:45980-DB MFA No.86/2022

¶64

of compensation. The claimant was initially provided treatment

¶65

at General Hospital, KGF, later at NIMHANS, Bengaluru and undergone brain surgery. Considering the age of the claimant, the Tribunal has rightly applied '16' multiplier. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and in the absence of

¶66

any evidence by the Insurance Company to disbelieve the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of income during laid up period and other heads requires to be enhanced appropriately. Hence, the

¶67

compensation is re-assessed as under:

¶68

Sl. No.	Particulars	Compensation awarded in Rs.
1.	Loss of future earnings due to disability (9,500 + 3,800 (40%) = 13,300 x 12 x 16 x 75%)	19,15,200/-
2.	Pain and suffering	1,50,000/-
3.	Loss of amenities	1,00,000/-
4.	Medical expenses	29,000/-
5.	Food, conveyance and attendant charges	25,000/-
6.	Loss of income during laid up period (9,500 x 6)	57,000/-
7.	Future medical expenses	50,000/-
	TOTAL	23,26,200/-
	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	8,06,000/-
	Enhanced compensation	15,20,200/-

¶69

11 -

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:45980-DB MFA No.86/2022

¶71

The compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate

¶72

of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶73

For the aforementioned reasons, we pass the following:

¶74

ORDER

¶75

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶76

ii. The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation

¶77

of Rs.15,20,200/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶78

iii. Respondent No.2 - insurer shall deposit the said amount before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶79

iv. Out of the enhanced compensation, 50% shall be released to the mother of the appellant-claimant digitally on furnishing required documents.

¶80

v. Remaining 50% shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bengaluru in the name of appellant - claimant for a period of ten years with

¶81

12 -

¶82

NC: 2024:KHC:45980-DB MFA No.86/2022

¶83

liberty to the next friend of the claimant to draw the interest

¶84

accrued on the said amount periodically.

¶85

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL)

¶86

JUDGE

¶87

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶88

¶89

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Sri Manjunath v. Mrs Priya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunath v. Mrs Priya

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

B Krishna Vs R Pari

Mr. Rakesh Vs Jethendra Jogi

Ravikumar Narayana Reddy Vs Aravindh S

Sri Lohith B Vs Sri M Gunyappa

The Manager Vs Sri. Goorappa @ Dodda Goorappa

Smt Bhuvaneshwari T S Vs Sri Prasanna Kumar R