Partly allowed

Sri T B Rajanna v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2024MFA/865/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award challenging compensation quantum. The Court modified the award by increasing the notional income to Rs.14,000 per month and enhancing heads of compensation for loss of future earnings, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and temporary loss of income. Appeal partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of total compensation to Rs.4,46,400/- with interest at 6% per annum.

Sri T B Rajanna Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9081 MFA No. 865 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 865 OF 2022 (MV-I)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI T.B.RAJANNA S/O. T.H.BASAVARUDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO. 6173/2003, HIPPE ANJANEYA SWAMY LAYOUT NELAMANGALA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 123

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI.MURALI PAWAR., ADV. FOR SRI SHIVAKUMAR P.,ADVOCATES)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD REGIONAL OFFICE, NO. 28, 5^TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, MG ROAD, BENALURU 560 001, REP BY ITS MANAGER

¶12

SRI.BYRAVESHWARA TRADERS NO. 5426, KUNDASWAMY LAYOUT, KUNIGAL CIRCLE, BYE PASS ROAD, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURUL RURAL DISTRICT- 562 123

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. LAKSHMINARAYAN C.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE SERVED TO R-2 & UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:9081 MFA No. 865 of 2022

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.8.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.2839/2019, ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & MACT BENGALURU WITH A PRAYER FOR ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENASTION.

¶18

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal is preferred by the appellant - claimant challenging the judgment & award dated 31^st August 2021 passed in MVC No.2839/2019 on the file of the II Additional Judge & ACMM, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal ). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶21

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶22

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶23

On 7.5.2019 at about 7.00 p.m. the claimant was riding Honda Activa vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-52L-4770 on Bengaluru to Nelamangala B.H. road, at that

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9081 MFA No. 865 of 2022

¶25

time a canter lorry bearing registration No.KA-52-9533 came in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed and dashed against the vehicle of the claimant, due to which the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries and admitted to V.P. Magnus hospital for 3 days. Infact, he suffered comminuted tibia candyle fracture left side, underwent surgery and met financial expenditure.

¶26

3.1 It is stated that claimant was aged 49 years as on the date of accident and working as Electronic Mechanic earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Due to the disability sustained in the accident, it has dented his future earning capacity. Hence, he filed the claim petition seeking compensation.

¶27

3.2 On service of notice, Respondent No.2 remained

¶28

absent and he was place exparte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1/insurer filed the written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition including age, avocation, income and negligence attributed

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:9081 MFA No. 865 of 2022

¶31

against driver of the offending vehicle and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶32

3.3 Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the relevant issues for consideration.

¶33

3.4 In order to substantiate the issues and establish the case, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and two doctors as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P31. The respondents did not adduce any evidence nor produced any documents on their behalf.

¶34

3.5 On the basis of the material evidence, both oral and documentary and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.3,43,600/- with interest at 6% per annum and directed the respondent No.1/insurer to deposit the compensation amount within three months.

¶35

3.6 Being aggrieved by the meager and inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:9081 MFA No. 865 of 2022

¶38

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel

¶40

for the appellant that the income of the appellant assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the compensation

¶41

awarded under different heads is not in accordance with the material on record. Therefore, he seeks to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation.

¶42

Per contra, learned counsel representing the insurance company contends that there is no error, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He further contends that the Tribunal awarded just and reasonable compensation under all heads, in accordance with the material evidence, both oral and documentary and the same does not call for interference.

¶43

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶44

and perused the material on record, it is seen that the claimant has produced the documents as per Exs.P1 to

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:9081 MFA No. 865 of 2022

¶47

P31, out of which, Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 are the Police records, which clearly depict registration of the FIR and laying of charge sheet against the rider of the offending vehicle and same has not been challenged or controverted. Therefore, the tribunal rightly attributed the negligence against the rider of the offending vehicle. Ex.P8 to Ex.P31 are the medical records, which clearly depict the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.

¶48

Now coming to the age, avocation and income of the claimant, though the claimant pleaded that he was working as a Electronic Mechanic earning Rs.25,000/- per month, no material is placed before the Court with regard to the same and proof of income. In the absence of the same, the Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant to be Rs.11,000/- per month, whereas the Legal Services Authority chart prescribes the notional income of Rs.14,000/- per month for the accident of the year 2019. Accordingly, the same is taken as income for computation in the present case as against Rs.11,000/- taken by the

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:9081 MFA No. 865 of 2022

¶51

Tribunal. The claimant was aged 49 years as on the date of accident and the appropriate multiplier would be '13', which is rightly applied by the tribunal and the same does not call for interference.

¶52

The doctor has been examined as PW.2. He has stated in his evidence that he treated the claimant for comminuted tibial condyle fracture left and opined disability to be 36% to the left lower limb and 12% to the whole body. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence of the doctor and considering the age, avocation and nature of injuries sustained by the claimant assessed the disability to be 10% to the whole body, which does not call for interference.

¶53

In view of the above, loss of future earnings would be Rs.2,18,400/- (Rs.14,000 x 12 x 13 x 10%) as against Rs.1,71,600/- awarded by the tribunal.

¶54

The tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain

¶55

and suffering. However, this Court deems it appropriate

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:9081 MFA No. 865 of 2022

¶58

to award additional amount of Rs.15,000/-. In all,

¶59

Rs.40,000/- is awarded under this head.

¶60

The Tribunal awarded Rs.75,000/- towards medical expenses, food, nourishment and attendant charges, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶61

The Tribunal awarded Rs.36,000/- towards future medical expenses, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶62

The Tribunal awarded Rs.11,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period, which is on the lower side. Considering the magnitude of injuries suffered by the claimant, atleast three months is required to recuperate and get back to normal day to day activities. In view of this Court enhancing the income to Rs.14,000/-

¶63

per month, Rs.42,000/- (Rs.14,000 x 3) is awarded under this head.

¶64

¶65

NC: 2024:KHC:9081 MFA No. 865 of 2022

¶66

The tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award additional amount of Rs.10,000/-. In all, Rs.35,000/- is awarded under this head.

¶67

In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,46,400/- as against Rs.3,43,600/- awarded by the Tribunal, as

¶68

mentioned in the table below:

¶69

Sl. No.	Head of compensation	Amount of compensation awarded
1	Loss of future earnings	Rs.2,18,400-00
2	Pain and sufferings	Rs. 40,000-00
3	Medical expenses, food, nourishment and attendant charges	Rs. 75,000-00
4	Future medical expenses	Rs. 36,000-00
5	Loss of earning during treatment	Rs. 42,000-00
6	Loss of amenities	Rs. 35,000-00
	Total	Rs.4,46,400-00

¶70

10 -

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:9081 MFA No. 865 of 2022

¶72

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶73

O R D E R

¶74

i) The appeal is allowed in part ;

¶75

ii) The impugned Judgment & Award dated 31^st August 2021 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.2839/2019, is modified.

¶76

iii) The appellant/claimant would be entitled to compensation of Rs.4,46,400/- (Rupees four lakhs forty-six thousand four hundred only) as against Rs.3,43,600/awarded by the Tribunal alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶77

iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with interest at 6% per annum by the respondent no.1/insurer within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶78

v) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant as per the

¶79

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:9081 MFA No. 865 of 2022

¶80

terms of the tribunal upon proper

¶81

identification.

¶82

vi) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the Tribunal shall stand intact.

¶83

Sd/JUDGE

¶84

GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69

Sri T B Rajanna v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T B Rajanna v. Reliance General 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

C.V Manjunatha Vs Kesavan

Kokilavani Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Sri Neelakantaiah Vs Mr Tajammul Pasha

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kumari Lakshmi G

Vasantha K a Vs Yatish N

Sri K Dharmapal Vs Mrs Naziya Noor