Allowed

S Pratheesha v. Sudhindra Shekar

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2024MFA/8673/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal for enhancement of motor accident compensation where claimant suffered grievous injuries including occipital and clavicle fractures with assessed functional disability. Court enhanced compensation from Rs.10,85,996/- to Rs.12,62,596/- by revising pain and suffering, laid-up period income, and disability percentage to 15% with notional income of Rs.8,500/- per month.

What the court decided

AI extract

S Pratheesha Vs Sudhindra Shekar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:20712-DB MFA No. 8673 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8673 OF 2019 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

S PRATHEESHA S/O LATE SHIVAPADU AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/O. KANENUR VILLAGE HULLAHALLI HOBLI NANJANAGUDU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT PIN CODE-571314.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN

¶12

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI. PRAKASHA H C – ADVOCATE FOR

¶14

SMT. KAVITHA H C - ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SUDHINDRA SHEKAR S/O. CHANDRA MAJOR R/AT NO.1203, 2^ND CROSS 4^TH STAGE, PADUVANA ROAD T K LAYOUT, KUVEMPUMNAGARA MYSURU-570023.

¶17

THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., M.C. ROAD, MANDYA-571401.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. K SURESH – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; RESPONDENT NO.1 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20712-DB MFA No. 8673 of 2019

¶21

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY MODIFYING AND ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AWARDED IN MVC NO.39/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MANDYA VIDE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.03.2019.

¶22

THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA . J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard Shri Prakasha H.C., learned counsel for the appellant as well as Shri K. Suresh, learned counsel who is representing Respondent No.2. Despite service of notice, none appears for Respondent No.1.

¶25

Challenge in this appeal is the order that is rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal , Mandya, in MVC No.39/2015 dated 11.03.2019. As against the claim for Rs.50,00,000/- by the claimant / appellant, the Tribunal through the impugned order, awarded a sum of Rs.10,85,996/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the sum

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20712-DB MFA No. 8673 of 2019

¶27

awarded and seeking for enhancement of compensation, the present appeal is preferred.

¶28

Arguing in respect of the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant sustained grievous injuries due to the accident and became permanently disabled. The appellant was working as a Cook under a Caterer and was eking out his livelihood. But due to the injuries sustained, more particularly to the temporal bone, he is unable to do any work and thereby he is dependant on others. Learned counsel also submits that the appellant incurred huge amount towards medical expenses and the Doctor assessed the disability as 40%. However, the Tribunal though considered the entire evidence, went wrong in taking the whole body disability as 10%. Learned counsel further contends that the amount awarded as compensation under all other heads is also improper and inadequate and hence, the compensation granted requires enhancement.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:20712-DB MFA No. 8673 of 2019

¶30

Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2

¶31

states that the Tribunal has examined the case and discussed at length about the occupation and income of the appellant by the date of accident and further, the disability aspect was also taken into consideration and thereby the Tribunal is right in awarding a sum of Rs.10,85,996/- as compensation and hence the award of the Tribunal needs no interference.

¶32

However, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 graciously submits that instead of taking the notional income of the appellant as Rs.8,000/- per month, the Tribunal ought to have taken his income as Rs.8,500/- per month, which figure is considered even by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority while calculating the compensation.

¶33

The Tribunal through the impugned order, has awarded compensation divided under different heads as under:

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:20712-DB MFA No. 8673 of 2019

¶35

1	Towards pain and sufferings	Rs. 50,000/-
2	Towards medical expenses and future medical expenses	Rs.7,66,196 + 30,000/-
3	Towards attendant charges, conveyance, nursing care, nourishment and towards other incidental expenses	Rs. 21,000/-
4	Towards loss of income during laid down period	Rs. 16,000/-
5	Towards loss of future income due to permanent disability	Rs. 1,72,800/-
6	Towards physical disability affecting future amenities in the life of the petitioner	Rs. 30,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs.10,85,996/-

¶36

A perusal of record reveals that the appellant sustained fracture of occipital bone and commuted fracture of left Clavicle. The Doctor opined that both the injuries sustained are grievous in nature. Further, there is no dispute of the fact that the appellant took treatment as inpatient from 28.09.2014 to 17.10.2014 and also from 01.12.2014 to 04.12.2014 at Columbia Asia Hospital, Mysore. Equally, it is not in dispute that the appellant underwent surgery for fixation of left clavicle fracture and further he underwent bone flap replacement procedure.

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:20712-DB MFA No. 8673 of 2019

¶38

The appellant undertook treatment as in-patient for a total

¶39

period of 24 days.

¶40

Having considered these aspects, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the amount that can be awarded under the head ‘Pain and suffering’ for the injuries sustained is Rs.50,000/-. However, we are of the considered view that having regard to the grievous injuries sustained, that too as one of the injury is at occipital region, it would be just and reasonable to award Rs.80,000/- under the head ‘Pain and suffering’. Likewise, the Tribunal though awarded a sum of Rs.21,000/towards ‘Attendant charges, conveyance charges, Nursing care, nourishment and other incidental expenses’, having considered the fact that the appellant took extensive treatment as in-patient twice, underwent two surgical procedures and was taking follow up treatment, this Court is of the view that under all those heads, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is required to be awarded. The Tribunal, taking the notional income as Rs.8,000/- per month, awarded a sum of Rs.16,000/- as compensation towards

¶41

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:20712-DB MFA No. 8673 of 2019

¶42

‘Loss of income during laid up period’, taking the laid-up period to be two months. However, considering the fact that the appellant was taking treatment as in-patient for long period of 24 days and that he sustained fracture of his clavicle bone and also grievous injuries at his occipital region, we are of the view that the appellant would not have been in a position to attend his normal pursuits at least for a period of six months. Taking the notional income of Rs.8,500/- per month, ‘Loss of income during laid-up period’ for six months, comes to Rs.51,000/-. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the award of medical expenses of Rs.7,66,196/- and also Rs.30,000/towards ‘future medical expenses’.

¶43

Coming to the aspect of ‘Loss of future income due to permanent disability’, the Tribunal having assessed the disability as 10% in respect of the whole body, taking the notional income as Rs.8,000/-, applying the appropriate multiplier ‘18’, has awarded a sum of Rs.1,72,800/towards ‘Loss of income due to disability’. However, having considered the nature of injuries sustained and

¶44

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:20712-DB MFA No. 8673 of 2019

¶45

more particularly taking into consideration the assessment of functional disability by the Doctor who examined the appellant and the contents of Exhibit C5, we are of the view that functional disability in respect of the whole body can be taken as 15%. Therefore, taking the notional income as Rs.8,500/-, keeping the appropriate multiplier as ‘18’ intact with the percentage of disability as 15%, the

¶46

‘Loss of future earnings due to disability’, comes to Rs.2,75,400/-.

¶47

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-

¶48

towards loss sustained which affects future amenities in life. There is nothing to interfere with the said amount awarded. Thus, the total compensation which the appellant would be entitled under different heads would be as under:

¶49

Sl.No.	Heads of compensation	Amount awarded
1	Pain and suffering	Rs. 80,000/-
2	Medical expenses	Rs. 7,66,196/-
3	Future medical expenses	Rs. 30,000/-

¶50

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:20712-DB MFA No. 8673 of 2019

¶51

4	Attendant charges, conveyance charges, nursing care, nourishment and other incidental expenses	Rs. 30,000/-
5	Loss of income during laid-up period	Rs. 51,000/-
6	Loss of future income due to permanent disability	Rs. 2,75,400/-
7	Physical disability which affects the future amenities in life	Rs. 30,000/-
	TOTAL AMOUNT	Rs.12,62,596/-

¶52

In the light of the foregoing discussion, we pass

¶53

the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶56

ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandya through orders in MVC No.39/2015 dated 11.03.2019 is enhanced from Rs.10,85,996/- to Rs.12,62,596/-.

¶57

iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶58

10 -

¶59

NC: 2024:KHC:20712-DB MFA No. 8673 of 2019

¶60

iv) The second respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶61

v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to

¶62

withdraw the entire amount.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

S Pratheesha v. Sudhindra Shekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

S Pratheesha v. Sudhindra Shekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priyadharshini, Vs the State of Karnataka

The Managing Director Vs Sri Jagadeesh Singh

National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri M Idinabba

National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri. U.P Verghese

The New India Vs Master Shobith

Gopalakrishna a Vs Smt Anju Chauhan