Mr. Subhash Kumar Sharma Vs M/S. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:663 MFA No. 8867 of 2015

¶2

1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8867 OF 2015(MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. SUBHASH KUMAR SHARMA S/O DULRCHAND SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT NO.28/1, SRI NILAYA, 5^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN ROAD GOKUL I STAGE, I PHASE YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU-560 022.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SMT. SREEVIDYA G.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T.N. VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. T.P.CLAIMS HUB, CENTENARY BUILDING, 4^TH FLOOR, EAST WING, M. G. ROAD, BENGLAURU-560 001. 2. MRS. SUSHEELA E. W/O. MAHADEVA M., MAJOR, R/AT NO.1049/1, 13^TH MAIN SHANTHAVANA ROAD, WEAVERS COLONY, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 050.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. C. LAKSHMINARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. VIJAY KUMAR PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:663 MFA No. 8867 of 2015

¶17

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.2297/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, & XXVII ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

Heard Miss.Sreevidya, who represents

¶22

Sri.T.N.Viswanatha, learned counsel on record for the appellant. Also heard Sri.Mallikarjuna Reddy, who represents Sri.C.Lakshminarayana,, learned counsel on record for respondent No.1 and Sri.Vijay Kumar Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶23

The claimant in MVC No.2297/2014 that stood pending before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru and was disposed of through order dated 08.07.2015 is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶24

On the ground that he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident, appellant filed a petition claiming compensation

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:663 MFA No. 8867 of 2015

¶27

of Rs.6,00,000/- in total. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.1,81,881/- as compensation.

¶28

Arguing the matter Miss.Sreevidya, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant was pursuing his studies and was in 1^st year B.E. by the date of accident. He sustained fracture of both bones of right leg and also abrasion over right knee. He also underwent a surgery. But the bones remained mal-united. Learned counsel submits that through the evidence of PW2 it is clearly brought on record that the permanent disability in respect of whole body is 15.83%. Learned counsel states that the Tribunal without considering the evidence that is produced, awarded meager sum as compensation and therefore an appeal is filed. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement of compensation.

¶29

The submission that is made by Sri.Mallikarjuna Reddy, who is representing respondent No.1 on the other hand is that the appellant completed his B.E. course and there is no loss of earnings at all due to the injuries sustained. Learned counsel thereby states that the present appeal is not maintainable.

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:663 MFA No. 8867 of 2015

¶31

4 -

¶32

Sri.Vijay Kumar Prakash who is representing

¶33

respondent No.2 seeks the Court to pass necessary orders basing on the submission that is made by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶34

The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded

¶35

a sum of Rs.1,81,881/- as compensation divided under the following heads:

¶36

Sl.	Heads of compensation	Amount in
No		Rs.
1	Medical expenses	71,140-00
2	Food, conveyance, nourishment, attendant and other expenses	08,000-00
3	Pain and agony	20,000-00
4	Loss of amenities in life	20,000-00
5	Loss of income	42,741-00
6	Future medical expenses	20,000-00
	Total	1,81,881-00

¶37

Undoubtedly the appellant who was aged about 20

¶38

years by the date of accident sustained comminuted fracture of both bones of right leg and took treatment as inpatient twice. The evidence of PW2 is that the fracture is mal-united with implants in situ. PW2 also stated that on examination he found tenderness and swelling in the right knee and ankle. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/- under the head food,

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:663 MFA No. 8867 of 2015

¶41

conveyance, nourishment, attendant and other expenses. The appellant succeeded in establishing that he took treatment as inpatient from 23.05.2014 to 26.05.2014 at the first instance and again got admitted and took treatment in the second instance from 18.07.2014 to 22.07.2014. Also as earlier narrated, the evidence of PW2 makes it clear that the fracture is mal-united. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- only under the head pain and agony. Likewise it awarded Rs.20,000/- only under the head loss of amenities in life.

¶42

Having considered the tender age of the appellant at which he sustained the comminuted fracture and as the fracture remains mal-united, which is clear through the evidence of PW2, this Court is of the view that globally a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is required to be awarded in addition to the sum that is awarded by the Tribunal as compensation under all heads. The enhanced sum covers the food, conveyance, nourishment, attendant charges, pain and suffering due to the injuries sustained, loss of amenities in life and loss of future earnings. Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:663 MFA No. 8867 of 2015

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶46

ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, through orders in MVC No.2297/2014 dated 08.07.2015 is enhanced by Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶47

iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶48

iv) Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶49

v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

¶50

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶51

AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Mr. Subhash Kumar Sharma v. M/S. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Subhash Kumar Sharma v. M/S. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

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 Suresh Narayanappa Vs Smt Sandya B S

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Sri Srinivasa @ Seena

Sree Harsha B P Vs Sri Ramesh B S

Smt Ranjini G N Vs Sri Ranganath Reddy R a

Smt. Shilpa Mavalli Vs Shri Chethan P R

Smt. Sunanda N @ Manvitha N Vs Sri Madhu T