Partly allowed

Kum Keerthana Reddy v. Sri Krishnamurthy C

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2024MFA/89/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two injured claimants sought enhancement of compensation from a motor accident claims tribunal award arising out of one autorickshaw accident. The court reversed the Tribunal's liability finding against the owner, holding the insurer liable with recovery rights, and enhanced compensation under several heads in both claim petitions.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.31,000 and Rs.34,000 to the two claimants respectively, payable by the insurer with liberty to recover from the owner, with interest at 6% p.a.

Kum Keerthana Reddy Vs Sri Krishnamurthy C — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:30779 MFA No. 89 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 90 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 89 OF 2014 (MV)

¶7

C/W

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 90 OF 2014 (MV)

¶9

IN MFA No.89/2014

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

KUM KEERTHANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, D/O UMAKANTHA REDDY R. R/AT NO.338/A, 3RD MAIN, 3RD PHASE, J.P.NAGARA, BENGALURU - 560078

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. BHUSHANI KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI KRISHNAMURTHY C S/O CHANNAPPA A R/AT NO.38, SAKAMMA GARDEN, 5TH MAIN ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU – 560004

¶17

THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD HYB, D.O.4, NO.19, 19/1, SOUTH END ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004

¶18

CHANDRASHEKAR S/O SRINIVASA REDDY,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:30779 MFA No. 89 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 90 of 2014

¶21

R/AT NO.586/2, 30TH CROSS, THILAKANAGARA, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560041

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. B A RAMAKRISHNA.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 & R3 DISPENSED WITH V/O DT.12.11.2019)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.8840/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVIII ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

IN MFA No.90/2014

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

KUM NISCHITHA REDDY D/O V.SRINIVASA REDDY R/AT NO.319, 14TH CROSS 8TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK JAYANAGARA BENGALURU 560011

¶28

…APPELLANT

¶29

(BY SRI. BHUSHANI KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

SRI KRISHNAMURTHY C S/O CHANNAPPA A R/AT NO.38, SAKAMMA GARDEN 5TH MAIN ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU 560004

¶32

THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. HUB, D.O.4, NO.19, 19/1 SOUTH END ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU 540004

¶33

CHANDRASHEKAR S/O SRINIVASA REDDY

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:30779 MFA No. 89 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 90 of 2014

¶36

R/AT NO.586/2, 30TH CROSS THILAKANAGARA JAYANAGARA BENGALURU 560041

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. B A RAMAKRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 & R3 DISPENSED WITH V/O DT.12.11.2019)

¶39

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.8841/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVIII ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶40

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶42

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶43

MFA.No.89/2014 is filed challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC.No.8840/2010. MFA.No.90/2014 is filed challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC.No.8841/2010.

¶44

The claim petitions were partly allowed by the common judgment and award dated 10.04.2013 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru¹ . Both the claims arise out of same accident. Hence, both the appears are taken up together for consideration.

¶45

1 Hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:30779 MFA No. 89 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 90 of 2014

¶48

The Tribunal had awarded a compensation of 1,14,000/in MVC.No.8840/2010 and 1,11,884/in MVC.No.8841/2010. Further the Tribunal recorded a finding that the driver of the insured vehicle i.e., autorickshaw bearing No. KA 05 D 4442, did not have a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident. Hence, the Tribunal has ordered that the owner of the said vehicle is liable to pay the compensation awarded.

¶49

Being aggrieved the claimants have preferred the present appeals challenging the finding of the Tribunal on liability, as also seeking for enhancement of compensation.

¶50

Heard submissions of learned counsel Sri. Kumar., for the appellant and learned counsel Sri. B.A. Ramakrishna., for respondent No.2 - insurer.

¶51

It is forthcoming that the Tribunal while considering the question of liability, noticing the driving license extract of the driver of the insured vehicle (Ex.R.3), noticed that the driver of the vehicle was authorized to drive Light Motor Vehicles (LMV) non transport up to 23.08.2026 and LMV transport up to 03.09.2009. The said licence for LMV was

¶52

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:30779 MFA No. 89 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 90 of 2014

¶53

issued on 04.09.2006. Hence, the licence authorizing the driver to drive the LMV transport expired prior to date of the accident i.e., 06.11.2010. In view of the said admitted position and having regard to the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SHAMANNA AND ANOTHER V/S DIVISIONAL

¶54

MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND

¶55

OTHERS² , it is just and proper that the finding of the Tribunal be interfered with and it be ordered that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation awarded with liberty to recovery same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶56

Regarding the quantum in MFA.No.89/2014 (MVC.No.8840/2010):

¶57

It is noticed that the claimant is aged 22 years and she is stated to have been working as a Junior Accountant. However, no documents have been produced to prove her income. It is forthcoming from the wound certificate (Ex.P.4) and two discharge summaries (Ex.P.7) that the claimant had sustained fracture of right superior pubic rami and lacerated wound over right elbow. The injuries sustained by the claimant

¶58

2 (2018) 9 SCC 650

¶59

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:30779 MFA No. 89 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 90 of 2014

¶60

has been treated conservatively. It is further noticed that the claimant had taken treatment as an in-patient in two hospitals from 06.11.2010 to 08.11.2010 and further from 08.11.2010 to 11.11.2010 i.e., for total period of six days. The claimant has not examined a Doctor. A total 19 medical bills (Ex.P.10) amounting to `15,741.50/- has been produced.

¶61

In view of the aforementioned the compensation is re-assessed as follows:

¶62

i) Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and the period of treatment it is just and proper the compensation towards pain and suffering be re-assessed as 60,000/- as against 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal;

¶63

ii) The Tribunal has awarded compensation towards medical expenses of 18,000/- and loss of amenities and future happiness is 40,000/- is just and proper;

¶64

iii) The Tribunal has awarded a sum of 6,000/towards conveyance, nourishment, etc., which is re-assessed as 16,000/-, keeping in mind the nature of injuries sustained and the period of treatment;

¶65

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:30779 MFA No. 89 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 90 of 2014

¶66

iv) The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of income during period of treatment. Having regard to the fact that the claimant has not produced any documents to prove her income, keeping in mind the chart of notional income being followed for settlement of claim by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, the income is assessed at 5,500/- p.m and the period of treatment is assessed at two months. Hence, it is just and proper a sum of 11,000/- is awarded toward loss of income during laid up period.

¶67

9. In view of the aforementioned, the compensation

¶68

under various heads is re-assessed a follows:

¶69

Sl.No.	Heads	Amount awarded by the Tribunal (`)	Amount awarded by this Court (`)
1.	Pain and suffering	50000.00	60000.00
2.	Medical expenses	18000.00	18000.00
3.	Attendant charges, food, nourishment and conveyance charges	6000.00	16000.00
6	Loss of amenities and future happiness	40000.00	40000.00
7	Loss of income during laid up period	00.00	11000.00
	Total	114000.00	145000.00

¶70

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:30779 MFA No. 89 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 90 of 2014

¶71

Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to further compensation of 31,000/(1,45,000/– `1,14,000/-) together with interest at 6% p.a, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶72

Regarding the quantum in MFA.No.90/2014 (MVC.No.8841/2010):

¶73

It is forthcoming that the claimant is aged 26 years

¶74

and is stated to be working as an executive in a private company. However, no material is produced to demonstrate the income. It is forthcoming from the wound certificate (Ex.P.13) and discharge summary (Ex.P.14) that the claimant has sustained fracture of right proximal phalanx of 4^th and 5^th toe. It is further forthcoming that the claimant was treated as an inpatient from 06.11.2010 to 07.11.2010 i.e., for a period of 2 days. The discharge summary (Ex.P.14) discloses that the claimant has undergone procedure for closed reduction ‘+ K- Wire Fixation on 07.11.2010 under general anesthesia. The claimant has produced 21 medical bills (Ex.P.16) for a total sum of `27,167.39/-. However, no Doctor has been examined.

¶75

¶76

NC: 2024:KHC:30779 MFA No. 89 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 90 of 2014

¶77

In view of the aforementioned, the compensation is re-assessed as follows:

¶78

i) Keeping in mind the nature of injuries sustained the compensation towards pain and suffering is re-assessed as 50,000/- as against 40,000/- assessed by the Tribunal;

¶79

ii) The compensation awarded towards loss of amenities and future happiness at `40,000/- is just and proper;

¶80

iii) Having regard to the fact that the claimant has undergone a procedure for the treatment of the injuries and having regard to the fact that the medical bills of 27,167.39/has been produced, it is just and proper to award a total sum of 40,000/- towards medical expenses and incidental charges;

¶81

iv) The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of 3,000/towards loss of earning during laid up period, it is just and proper to awarded further sum of 12,000/- i.e., a total sum of `15,000/- toward the same.

¶82

In view of the aforementioned, the compensation under various heads is re-assessed a follows:

¶83

10 -

¶84

NC: 2024:KHC:30779 MFA No. 89 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 90 of 2014

¶85

Sl.No.	Heads	Amount awarded by the Tribunal (`)	Amount awarded by this Court (`)
1.	Pain and suffering	40000.00	50000.00
2.	Medical expenses	28000.00	40000.00
4.	Loss of earning during the laid up period	3000.00	15000.00
6	Loss of amenities and future happiness	40000.00	40000.00
	Total	111000.00	145000.00

¶86

Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to further compensation of 34,000/- (45,000/- – `1,11,000/-) together with interest at 6% p.a, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶87

Hence, the following order;

¶88

ORDER

¶89

i) The appeals are allowed in part;

¶90

ii) The judgment and award dated 10.04.2013 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC.Nos.8840/2010 and 8841/2010 is modified as under:

¶91

11 -

¶92

NC: 2024:KHC:30779 MFA No. 89 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 90 of 2014

¶93

a) The claimant in MVC.No.8840/2010 is entitled for further sum of `31,000/-;

¶94

b) The claimant in MVC.No.8841/2010 is entitled for further sum of `34,000/-;

¶95

c) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal and as enhanced by this Court shall be paid by Respondent No.2 – insurer with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle;

¶96

iii) The judgment and award of the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain unaltered;

¶97

iv) Registry to draw the modified award accordingly.

¶98

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶99

PNV

¶100

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Kum Keerthana Reddy v. Sri Krishnamurthy C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kum Keerthana Reddy v. Sri Krishnamurthy C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hottemanchaiah Vs Chowdegowda

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt Pushpalatha

Riyaz Vs Moula Hussain

Kariyappa M.C. Vs Future General India

Rathnamma Vs Siddegowda

Official Liquidator of M/S Mother Care (India) Ltd. (in Liqn) Vs Sri Prakash Lachman Ahuja