B. K. Prakash Vs Sriram General Insurance Company Limited

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V. ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29-9-2015 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.294 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BENGALURU (SCCH-15), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶28

This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the

¶29

judgment and award dated 29-9-2015 passed in M.V.C. No.294 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, whereby, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,45,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on Rs.3,25,000/(excluding future medical expenses) from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

¶30

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall

¶31

be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal.

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31043-DB MFA No. 2209 of 2017

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Brief facts of the case are that on 4-10-2014 at about 3.30 P.M., Sri B.K. Prakash was proceeding in his motorcycle, bearing Registration No.KA-43 J-300, on the left side of Kanimata, Kanasawai Road, near Doddahejjaji, Doddabelavangala, Bengaluru Rural District, the driver of autorickshaw, bearing Registration No.KA-43/5332, came with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant, due to which, he fell down and sustained injuries all over the body. Hence, he claimed compensation on various heads.

¶35

Heard Sri Kushal Gowda, learned counsel for Sri Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel for the appellant-claimant, and Sri Vijaya Phaneendra T.B., learned counsel for Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in awarding only a sum of Rs.60,000/- global compensation towards 'permanent disability'. The Doctor, who treated the claimant, has clearly

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:31043-DB MFA No. 2209 of 2017

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

stated that the claimant is having permanent physical impairment to the left lower limb at 31.22% which comes to the whole body at 11%. Hence, he prays to enhance the compensation.

¶40

Per contra , the learned counsel for respondent No.1Insurance Company, supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded just and reasonable compensation under each heads, which does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. Thus, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶41

As there is no dispute regarding injuries sustained

¶42

by the claimant in a road traffic accident occurred on 4-10-2014 due to rash and negligent driving of an autorickshaw, bearing Registration No.KA-43/5332, by its driver and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is:

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:31043-DB MFA No. 2209 of 2017

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

“Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?”

¶47

After hearing both the learned counsel and perusal of the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on 'permanent disability' is not just and reasonable and it is on lower side. Accident is of the year 2014. The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/- per month without any proof. No documentary evidence is placed on record with regard to income of the claimant. In the absence of any proof of income, taking note of the Circular issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority as well as the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru, we deem it appropriate to reassess the notional income of the claimant at Rs.8,500/- per month.

¶48

As per Ex.P5-Wound Certificate and Ex.P6-Discharge Summary, the claimant suffered fracture of left femur; type II supracondylar fracture; type IV of left femur and other

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:31043-DB MFA No. 2209 of 2017

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

injuries. To substantiate the contention of the claimant, the claimant examined himself as PW1 and Dr. Arun Kumar M.S. as PW2. On clinical examination and radiological examination

¶52

of the claimant, PW2 found that the claimant is having permanent physical impairment to the right lower limb at 31.22% which comes to the whole body at 11%. Considering the age of the claimant, ‘16’ multiplier would be applicable. Hence, 'permanent disability' is reassessed as Rs.1,79,520/(8,500/- per month x 12 x 16 x 11/100).

¶53

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on other heads, such as, 'pain and sufferings', 'loss of income during laid-up period', ’attendant charges', 'medical expenses', 'future medical expenses' and 'loss of amenities' are maintained.

¶54

Thus, the claimant is entitled for the following compensation:

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:31043-DB MFA No. 2209 of 2017

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

HEADS	Rs.
Pain and sufferings	30,000.00
Loss of income during laid-up period	25,000.00
Attendant charges	25,000.00
Medical expenses	1,45,000.00
Future medical expenses	20,000.00
Loss of amenities	40,000.00
Permanent disability	1,79,520.00
TOTAL	4,64,520.00
Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	3,45,000.00
ENHANCED COMPENSATION	1,19,520.00

¶58

In the result, we pass the following

¶59

O R D E R

¶60

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶61

ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,64,520/- as against Rs.3,45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the additional compensation of Rs.1,19,520/- from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of

¶62

8 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:31043-DB MFA No. 2209 of 2017

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

realisation, excluding interest for delayed period of 404

¶66

days in filing the appeal.

¶67

iii. Respondent No.1-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional compensation together with interest within four weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶68

iv. Draw modified award accordingly.

¶69

v. No order as to costs.

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶72

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶73

KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

B. K. Prakash v. Sriram General Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. K. Prakash v. Sriram General Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Flavia Noronha @ Flavy Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri. K.R.Afsarulla Khan Vs M/S Sharma Transports

Smt Ramya Vs Sri Raghu

B M S College of Engineering Vs State of Karnataka

S Jayavikram Vs Sorake Chandra Shekar

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt Radha