Partly allowed

Sri. Benakappa v. Sri. B. Singappa

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2024MFA/8678/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for grievous injuries (fractures of left proximal tibia and right distal radius) causing 40% whole-body permanent disability. Court enhanced loss of earnings using notional income of Rs.8,000 p.m. per KSLSA, raised loss of amenities to Rs.50,000/-, enhancing total by Rs.1,30,600/- with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs.1,30,600/- with 6% p.a. interest; respondent No.2 insurer to deposit within 8 weeks; appellant permitted to withdraw entire amount.

Sri. Benakappa Vs Sri. B. Singappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:18725-DB MFA No. 8678 of 2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶9

MFA NO. 8678 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. BENAKAPPA S/O CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS AGRICULTURIST AND BUSINESSMAN R/O BULLAPURA SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577201.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI. G M NATARAJ - ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI. B. SINGAPPA S/O KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O 60 FEET ROAD 9^TH CROSS VINOBANAGAR SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶17

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD NEAR AMEER AHMED CIRCLE RUB BUILDING, B.H.ROAD SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577201.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; RESPONDENT NO.1 SERVED)

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:18725-DB MFA No. 8678 of 2017

¶21

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.145/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT-VI, SHIVAMOGGA AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard Sri G M Nataraj, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri Ravish Benni, learned counsel who represents respondent No 2. Notice to respondent No.1 stood dispensed with.

¶25

Challenge in this appeal is the order that is rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – VI, Shivamogga in MVC No.145/2014 dated 10.02.2016. This is a claimant’s appeal.

¶26

Seeking enhancement of compensation, learned

¶27

counsel Sri G.M.Nataraj submits that the appellant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident and became permanently disabled. Though, the Tribunal

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:18725-DB MFA No. 8678 of 2017

¶29

appreciated the entire evidence, yet awarded a meager sum as compensation. Therefore, seeking enhancement of compensation the present appeal is filed.

¶30

Learned counsel submits that the appellant was earning handful sum and was maintaining his family by the date of accident. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he is unable to do any work. Learned counsel also states that the evidence of medical officer produced establishes the nature of disability and therefore by allowing the appeal the sum claimed may be awarded as compensation.

¶31

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the Tribunal has awarded excess amount as compensation. He further states that the Tribunal took permanent disability as 40% which is highly excessive and the Tribunal ought to have taken permanent disability not more than 25%. Learned counsel also states that compensation awarded under other heads is also

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:18725-DB MFA No. 8678 of 2017

¶33

excessive. Therefore, the order rendered by the Tribunal

¶34

needs no interference.

¶35

A perusal of the material available on record

¶36

reveals that the Tribunal which dealt with the matter, awarded compensation under the following heads :

¶37

SL.No.	Heads	Amount
1	Pain and Suffering	Rs.50,000-00
2	Medical Expenses	Rs.80,000-00
3	Attendant, food & Nourishment charges etc	Rs.20,000-00
4	Conveyance Charges	Rs.15,000-00
5	Loss of earning capacity	Rs.3,16,800-00
6	Loss of amenities	Rs.25,000-00
7	Future medical expenses	Rs.30,000-00
	TOTAL	Rs.5,36,800-00

¶38

The appellant by examining himself as PW.1, examining the doctor who treated him as CW.1, exhibiting the exhibits P9 to P22 and Ex.C1 to C3 tried to establish that he is entitled to sum of Rs.32,00,000/- as

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:18725-DB MFA No. 8678 of 2017

¶40

compensation. However, the Tribunal by scrutinizing the entire material brought on record came to the conclusion that the amount which the appellant is entitled as compensation is Rs.5,36,800/-.

¶41

It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained abrasion on left shoulder, abrasion on left knee, abrasion on left side of forehead, fracture of left proximal tibia and fracture of right distal radius. It is also not in dispute that abrasion on left shoulder, abrasion on left knee and abrasion on left side of forehead are simple in nature and fracture of left proximal tibia and fracture of right distal radius are grievous in nature. By the evidence of CW.1, the appellant succeeded in establishing that he took treatment as inpatient from 05.10.2013 to 11.11.2023 and underwent surgery and thereafter he was discharged and again he was admitted on 05.12.2013 and has discharged on 19.12.2023. CW.1 who treated and examined the appellant has stated in his evidence that the appellant has 42% of disability in respect of his left lower limb which is

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:18725-DB MFA No. 8678 of 2017

¶43

permanent in nature and he has also got 19% disability in respect of his right upper limb which is also permanent in nature. Having considered the evidence produced, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that permanent disability in respect of whole body is 40%. We are of the considered view that the assessment thus made needs no interference as the same is justifiable.

¶44

On going through the material available on record, more particularly the impugned order it is found that the notional income taken by the Tribunal as Rs.6,000 p.m. needs interference. The appellant failed to establish his actual occupation and earnings by the date of accident. The accident occurred in 2013. The Karnataka State Legal Service Authority is taking the notional income for the relevant period as Rs.8,000/- p.m. We are of the considered view that it is desirable to take the said figure into consideration for calculating the compensation. In case the same is taken, the amount that can be awarded

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:18725-DB MFA No. 8678 of 2017

¶46

as compensation under the head of loss of earnings would

¶47

be Rs.4,22,400/- (8000 x 12 x 11 x 40%).

¶48

The compensation awarded under the head of loss of amenities needs enhancement as the appellant sustained grievous injuries due to the accident and underwent surgery and as submitted by CW.1, he is still suffering. Therefore, the amount awarded under the head of loss of amenities i.e., Rs.25,000/- requires to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. So far as the amount awarded under other heads i.e., pain and sufferings, medical expenses, attendant food and nourishment charges and future medical expenses needs no interference. Thus, the enhancement of compensation would be Rs.1,30,600/(Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Only).

¶49

In the light of the forgoing discussion, the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:18725-DB MFA No. 8678 of 2017

¶53

ii) The amount awarded as compensation by the

¶54

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – VI, Shivamogga though

¶55

orders in MVC NO.145/2014 dated 10.02.2016 is enhanced by Rs.1,30,600/-.

¶56

iii) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶57

iv) Respondent No 2 is directed to deposit the

¶58

enhanced sum along with interest within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶59

v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to

¶60

withdraw the entire amount.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sri. Benakappa v. Sri. B. Singappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Benakappa v. Sri. B. Singappa

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. Veerabhadrayya Potanhal K S Vs the Authorised Officer and Regional Manager

Shri. Krishna D Vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited

Shri. D Govindaraju Vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited

Dr. Arjun K Vs M/S Lithium Urban Technologies

Sri Sabyasachisengupta Vs Smt Debasreesircar

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs M/S Sreekanh Constructions