Sri Y M Nagaraj Vs Sri Satishkumar Venkataramani

SRI. SATISHKUMAR VENKATARAMANI, S/O VENKATARAMAN, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT NO.1, NAJMA AVENUE, SRINIVASAPURAM, TIRUNANMIYUR, CHENNAI - 600 041, TAMIL NADU.

¶13

Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE GENERAL COMPANY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, MANGALA PUNARBHAVA, NEXT TO BRIGADE TOWERS, BRIGADE TOWERS, BANGALORE - 560 025, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 04.03.21, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:25408 MFA No. 4487 of 2016

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.251/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 1^st July 2015, passed by the MACT and I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.251/2013, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶24

Though this appeal is slated for admission, with the consent of both the sides, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶25

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25408 MFA No. 4487 of 2016

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

The brief facts of the case are that, on 22.08.2012, the petitioner met with an accident due to

¶29

rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No.TN-07-BP-6544 by its driver. As a result, the petitioner sustained fracture midshaft of left femur and comminuted fracture of shaft right humerus with radial nerve palsy. He underwent surgery and took treatment as inpatient and spent huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical expenses. He has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

¶30

Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 filed the written statement denying the contents of the claim petition. It also denied its liability to pay the compensation on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. It also contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:25408 MFA No. 4487 of 2016

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

From the rival contentions of the parties, the

¶35

Tribunal framed necessary issues.

¶36

The claimant to prove his case examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 12 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-12. Respondents have not led any oral and documentary evidence.

¶37

The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending car by its driver and the said driver was holding a valid license to drive the said class of vehicle. The Tribunal has assessed the age of the claimant as 45 years, his earning as Rs.6,000/- per month, assessed the disability at 15% to the whole body, applied the multiplier as `14' and

¶38

awarded following amount of compensation:

¶39

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Pain and sufferings	40,000/-
Medical expenses	2,28,500/-
Incidental charges	12,600/-

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25408 MFA No. 4487 of 2016

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Loss of income during laid up period	18,000/-
Future loss of income due to disability	1,51,200/-
Conveyance	10,000/-
Total	4,60,300/-

¶43

8. I have heard the arguments.

¶44

9. Following point arise for consideration:

¶45

(i) Whether the claimant is entitled to

¶46

enhancement of compensation?

¶47

Learned counsel for the appellant contended

¶48

that the disability taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. According to the claimant his income was Rs.9,000/p.m., but the Tribunal took his income as Rs.6,000/- per month. The amount of compensation awarded under other heads is also on the lower side. Therefore, he prayed to enhance the same.

¶49

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and awarded a just and reasonable amount of

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25408 MFA No. 4487 of 2016

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

compensation. It does not call for any interference by this court. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶53

The injuries sustained by the claimant due to the accident are not seriously disputed. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the same. I anxiously considered the oral and documentary evidence led by the claimant. PW-1 is the claimant and he has reiterated the petition averments to prove his disability. PW-2 was also examined. According to the evidence of PW-2, the claimant has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 56% to the upper body, 38% to the lower body and 24% to the whole body.

¶54

The claimant is said to be working as a coolie and he contends that he was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The accident took place in the year 2012. Accepting the chart of notional income prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, income of the claimant is taken as Rs.7,000/- per month. Considering the medical records and evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, the

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25408 MFA No. 4487 of 2016

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Therefore, disability to the whole body is taken as 20%. The amount of compensation awarded under the other heads is also on the lower side, which needs enhancement. For the above said discussions, the claimant is entitled to the following amount of compensation:

¶58

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Pain and sufferings	70,000/-
Medical expenses	2,28,500/-
Special diet, conveyance and attendant charges	30,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period	28,000/-
(Rs.7,000/- x 4)
Loss of future earning capacity due to disability	2,35,200/-
(Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 14x 20%)
Loss of amenities	30,000/-
Future medical expenses	25,000/-
Total	6,46,700/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal	4,60,300/-
Enhancement-	1,86,400/-
Rounded off-	*1,87,000/-*

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:25408 MFA No. 4487 of 2016

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

The claimant is entitled to interest on the said amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation.

¶62

Undisputedly, respondents are liable to pay the said amount. The appeal was filed after delay of 259 days and while allowing the said application interest was denied. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled to interest for the said period. Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards 'future medical expenses'. Claimant is not entitled to interest on the said amount.

¶63

For the above said discussions, I answer the above question partly in the affirmative.

¶64

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i) The Appeal is allowed in part .

¶67

ii) The judgment and award dated 1^st July 2015, passed in MVC.No.251/2013, by

¶68

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:25408 MFA No. 4487 of 2016

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

the MACT and I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar, stands modified;

¶71

iii) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,87,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, excluding delayed period of 259 days in filing the appeal. He is also not entitled to interest on the amount of future medical expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

¶72

iv) The remaining portion of the award regarding release and deposit are not disturbed.

¶73

v) Draw award accordingly.

¶74

Registry is directed to send back the records along

¶75

with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal.

¶76

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶77

AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT: BHK

Sri Y M Nagaraj v. Sri Satishkumar Venkataramani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Y M Nagaraj v. Sri Satishkumar Venkataramani

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

Sri B H Raju, S/O Hanumaiah Vs Sri Badrappa S/O Channaveerappa

The Divisional Manager Vs Gopala @ Gopala Krishna

Sri Shekar Vs Sri C v Mahesh

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. R Sumathi

Shri. Suresha Vs Shabbir K (Since Dead by His Lrs)

Raghavendra Shet Vs Mahesh