Sannaningamma Vs Sudhakara K N

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:19675 MFA No. 8577 of 2016

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8577 OF 2016 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SANNANINGAMMA W/O LATE MAHADEVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT T.M HOSUR VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 807.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. THYAGARAJA S.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SUDHAKARA K N S/O NARASIMHAIAH MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.38, YEKALAVYA NAGAR, SHYADANAHALLI, MYSORE - 570 011.

¶13

Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

NINGARAJU K R/AT NO.545 , BEHIND E.D. HOSPITAL, 4^TH CROSS, LOKANAYAKA NAGARA, METAGALLI POST, MYSORE CITY - 570 016.

¶15

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., NEW MUSLIM HOSTEL COMPLEX, OPP FIRE BRIGADE, 1^ST MAIN SARASWATHIPURAM,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19675 MFA No. 8577 of 2016

HC-KAR

MYSORE - 570 005.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.S SRISHAILA, ADVOCATE FOR R3, VIDE ORDER DATED 30.11.2017, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH, R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30/07/2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.195/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND 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:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 30^th July 2016, passed by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Srirangapatna, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.195/2013, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶26

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

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19675 MFA No. 8577 of 2016

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Brief facts of the case are that, on 12.12.2012,

¶30

at about 5.15 p.m., claimant got down from a bus near Pump house, on KRS-Mysuru road at Srirangapatna Taluk and while crossing the road to go to P.Hosahalli, rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-09-EH-2219, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant, as a result, the claimant sustained fracture of supra condylar of left humerus, fracture of lower end of radius and fracture of ulnar styloid process. She underwent surgery, she took treatment as an inpatient in K.R.Hospital, Mysuru, for 29 days. Claimant was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident. She was working as a gardner and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, she is unable to do work and hence, prayed to award compensation of Rs.9,50,000/-.

¶31

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of

¶32

offending motorcycle and respondent No.3 is the insurer. The respondents have appeared before the Tribunal and

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19675 MFA No. 8577 of 2016

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

have denied the contentions of the claim petitioner. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have contended that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 and it is liable to pay the compensation, if claim petition is allowed.

¶36

Respondent No.3 has denied petition averments

¶37

and its liability to pay the compensation on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the policy and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶38

From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

¶39

Claimant to prove her case examined two witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 and marked

¶40

14 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-14. Respondents have not led evidence.

¶41

The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. Assessed the income of the

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19675 MFA No. 8577 of 2016

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month, age of the claimant as 42 years; applied the multiplier as `14'; assessed the disability suffered by the claimant at 14% to the whole

¶45

body and awarded following compensation.

¶46

Pain and suffering	Rs.40,000/-
Medical expenses	Rs.15,000/-
Food, attendant and conveyance charges	Rs.20,000/-
Loss of income during the period of treatment and rest	Rs.18,000/-
Loss of earning capacity due to permanent functional disability	Rs.1,42,000/-
Future medical expenses	Rs.12,000/-
Loss of amenities of life and for future discomforts	Rs.20,000/-
Total	Rs.2,67,000/-

¶47

9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

¶48

appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer.

¶49

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

¶50

the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on

¶51

the lower side. The Tribunal has not considered the

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19675 MFA No. 8577 of 2016

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

income of the claimant properly. Hence, prayed to enhance the compensation.

¶55

11. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-insurer contended that amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and same does not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal with costs.

¶56

12. Following points uestions arise for consideration :

¶57

(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled for

¶58

enhancement of compensation?

¶59

(ii) What order?

¶60

Point No.1 :

¶61

13. The fact of the accident and claimant sustaining

¶62

injuries in the accident as mentioned in the wound certificate are not in dispute. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the said fact.

¶63

14. According to the claimant, she was working as a gardner and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. She was unable to prove the same. Tribunal assessed the notional

¶64

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19675 MFA No. 8577 of 2016

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

income of the claimant as Rs.6,000/- per month, which appears to be on the lower side. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income of the victim of an accident of the year 2012 is Rs.7,000/- per month. Same can be applied to the facts of the present case.

¶67

15. Considering the evidence of PW-2 - doctor and medical records, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the permanent disability suffered by the claimant at 14% to the whole body, which does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶68

16. Even there is no dispute in respect of the multiplier applied by the Tribunal. Considering the medical evidence and the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Claimant had sustained three fractures and she was admitted as an inpatient for nearly 29 days in the hospital. She underwent surgery. She has to look after her household work and also work as a gardner. She had

¶69

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19675 MFA No. 8577 of 2016

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

sustained fractures of left humerus, radius and ulna, which affects seriously in her day-today work. Considering these facts, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement.

¶72

17. Accordingly, following compensation is awarded:

¶73

Particulars	Amounts in Rs.
Pain and suffering	60,000/-
Medical expenses	15,000/-
Food, attendant and conveyance charges	30,000/-
Loss of income during the period of treatment and rest	28,000/-
(Rs.7,000/- x 4)
Loss of earning capacity due to permanent functional disability (Rs.7,000/-x12x14x14%)	1,64,640/-
Future medical expenses	25,000/-
Loss of amenities of life and for future discomforts	50,000/-
Total	3,72,640/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement- Rounded off-	2,67,000 1,05,640/- *1,06,000/-*

¶74

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:19675 MFA No. 8577 of 2016

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

Thus, claimant is entitled to enhancement of Rs.1,06,000/-, with interest at 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till its realization. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.

¶77

Undisputedly, respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owners and respondent No.3 being the insurer are liable to pay the said amount.

¶78

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

i) The Appeal is allowed in part .

¶81

ii) The judgment and award dated 30^th July 2016, passed in MVC.No.195/2013, by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Srirangapatna, stands modified.

¶82

iii) The claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,06,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till its realization.

¶83