Gowramma Vs Guruprasad

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40043 MFA No. 68 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2020 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GOWRAMMA W/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT CHIKKAKANYA JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶9

NOW R/AT C/O HEMALATHA MOGARAHALLI VILLAGE S R PATANA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT PIN-571 405.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SANATH KUMARA K M.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

GURUPRASAD S/O NAGENDRAPPA R/AT MEDENI VILLAGE T. NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT PIN-571 122.

¶15

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., NO.2912, SRI VENKATESHWARA PLAZA 1^ST STAGE, SARASWATHIPURAM MYSURU - 570 009.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:40043 MFA No. 68 of 2020

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

(BY SRI. K. NAGARAJAIAH.,ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 14.12.2021 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.17.01.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.219/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 17.01.2019 passed in M.V.C No.219/2018 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Srirangapatna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶25

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

¶26

The brief facts of the case are that, on 04.01.2018, at about 01.00 p.m., the claimant met with an accident near Hosahalli Village, T. Narsipura Taluk due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-02-EL-9491. As

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:40043 MFA No. 68 of 2020

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

a result of the impact, she sustained fractures. She took treatment as inpatient and suffered permanent disability. She was aged about 65 years at the time of accident. She was a vegetable vendor and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to injuries sustained in the accident, she is unable to perform her duties. For these reasons, she prayed to award compensation of Rs.12,80,000/-.

¶31

Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer. Both have appeared and contested the matter. Both have denied the contents of the claim petition. Respondent No.2 denied its liability to pay the compensation and thus, pleaded to dismiss the claim petition.

¶32

The Tribunal framed the necessary issues, recorded the evidence of witnesses and after hearing the arguments, held that accident occurred due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. The Tribunal assessed the age of the claimant as 65 years, disability at 15%, multiplier as 7, monthly income as Rs.7,500/- and awarded following amount of compensation:

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:40043 MFA No. 68 of 2020

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Head of compensation	Amount
Pain, shock and agony	Rs.30,000/-
Medical expenses	Rs.70,215/-
Food, diet, Nourishment, conveyance and other incidental expenses	Rs.8,000/-
Loss of income during treatment period	Rs.6,000/-
Towards Future medical expenses	Rs.15,000/-
Loss of income towards permanent disability	Rs.75,600/-
Disappointment and discomfort and loss of amenities	Rs.15,000/-
Total	Rs.2,19,815/-

¶37

The claimant dissatisfied by the compensation

¶38

awarded, preferred this appeal seeking enhancement.

¶39

I have heard the arguments.

¶40

The main grievance of the learned counsel for the

¶41

appellant is that the income of the claimant was not properly assessed by the Tribunal. Similarly, as per the evidence of CW1, claimant has been suffering from permanent disability to an extent of 45% of left lower limb. However, the Tribunal assessed functional disability at 15%, which is on much lower

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:40043 MFA No. 68 of 2020

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

side. The amount of compensation awarded on the other heads are also on the lower side. Therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

¶46

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the said contention and submitted that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable, and that the claimant is not entitled to any enhancement. He further submits that the Tribunal erroneously awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till payment of the entire amount, which needs to be corrected and interest at the rate of 6% may be awarded. With these reasons prayed to dismiss the present appeal.

¶47

The fact of the accident and injuries sustained by the claimant are not seriously disputed. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the said facts.

¶48

The claimant contends that she was vegetables and flowers vendor and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, she has not substantiated the said contention. Hence the Tribunal assessed the notional income as Rs.7,500/- per month. Looking at the facts, the said income

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:40043 MFA No. 68 of 2020

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Following the

¶53

chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income of the claimant is taken as Rs.12,5000/- per month. T here is no dispute in respect of age of the claimant as well as the multiplier.

¶54

It is true that, in the evidence of CW1, he has stated that the claimant has suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 45% in both the left and right lower limbs. CW1 has not assessed physical disability. The Tribunal is concerned with the functional disability. CW1 has not provided an evaluation of the total functional disability of both lower limbs. When compared with the schedule under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the disability assessed by CW1 appears to be on the higher side. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for appellant cannot be accepted. Claimant was aged about 65 years at the time of accident. Looking at the said facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly held that the claimant has been suffering from permanent disability to an extent of 15% of the whole body.

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:40043 MFA No. 68 of 2020

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

On reappreciation of the materials placed on record,

¶59

the amount of compensation awarded under all the heads are on the lower side. She had sustained a fracture of right trochanteric bone and both the bones of left leg. Therefore, amount of compensation awarded under the head of ''pain and suffering'' is on the lower side. She had taken treatment in a private hospital and was admitted as inpatient for 7 days at Mysore. Claimant being a resident of Chikkakanya Village, Jayapura Hobli, she might have spent substantial amount towards conveyance charges for taking treatment as well as follow-ups treatment. This aspect was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. Looking at the other facts and circumstances,

¶60

the following amount of compensation is awarded:

¶61

Head of compensation	Amount
Pain, shock and agony	Rs.50,000/-
Medical expenses	Rs.70,215/-
Food, special diet, Nourishment, conveyance and other incidental expenses	Rs.25,000/-
Loss of income during treatment period (Rs.12,500X5=Rs.62,500/-)	Rs.62,500/-
Towards Future medical expenses	Rs.15,000/-

¶62

8 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:40043 MFA No. 68 of 2020

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Loss of income towards permanent disability (Rs.12,500x12x7x15%=Rs.62,500/-)	Rs.1,57,500/-
Disappointment and discomfort and	Rs.25,000/-
loss of amenities
Total	Rs.4,05,215/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.2,19,815/-
Enhancement-	*Rs.1,85,400/-*

¶66

Undisputedly, respondent-Insurer is liable to pay the compensation. Claimant is entitled for interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 6% per annum. This appeal was filed after a delay of 183 days. The claimant filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay. This Court by an order dated 11.10.2022, allowed the application in I.A. No. 1/2019 and delay was condoned, subject to the condition that if the claimant succeeds in the appeal, she would not be entitled to interest for the delayed period. Therefore, excluding the said period of 183 days, she is entitled to interest.

¶67

For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:

¶68

9 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:40043 MFA No. 68 of 2020

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

ORDER

¶72

i) The Appeal is allowed in part .

¶73

ii) The judgment and award dated 17^th January 2019, passed in MVC.No.219/2018, by the A ddl. Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Srirangapatna, stands modified.

¶74

iii) The claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,85,400/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till its realization, excluding the delayed period of 183 days in filing the appeal.

¶75

iv) The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award.

¶76

v) Looking at the age of claimant, entire enhanced amount with interest shall be released in favour of claimant on due identification.

¶77

Vi) Send back TCR with copy of judgment to trial Court.

¶78

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶79

RL

¶80

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Gowramma v. Guruprasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gowramma v. Guruprasad

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

Mr. K. Kamalaksha Shetty Vs Mr. Abdul Khader

Smt G M Shobha Vs Sri G T Mangala Murthy

Smt Madhuri Choudhary Vs Mr Tushar Kumar

Prema Vs Santhosh Kumar S

Mrs. Sulochana Suvarna Vs Miss Shwetha a K

Ganesh K Vs Subramanya H