The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13429 MFA No. 7067 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7067 OF 2014 (MV-I) …APPELLANT BETWEEN: ANANDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O NARASIMHAPPA, RESIDENT AT MACHARAJANAHALLI VILLAGE, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DIST-572 132 (BY SRI. MUSHTAQ AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LAKSHMINIARAYANA K., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O K.NARASIMHAPPA, R/AT NO.13-8-59, BOYAPETE, HINDUPUR, ANDRAPRADESH-515 201 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE NO.16-3-474 (A), KRISHNA MANSION, MAIN BAZAR, HINDUPUR, ANDRAPRADESH-515 201 SERVICE CENTER AT: BRANCH OFFICE, TUMKUR SHOPPING COMPLEX, B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR TOWN-572 122. REP BY ITS MANAGER. (BY SRI. R.JAI PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 V/O/D 4/10/2017- NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.112/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, MACT-20, MADHUGIRI (SITTING AT PAVAGADA) PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13429 MFA No. 7067 of 2014 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.C.No.112/2009 dated 20.09.2013 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & MACT XX, Madhugiri (Sitting at Pavagada), the claimant is before the Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant. 2. The facts of the case are that on 24.02.2009 at about 7:00 p.m., the claimant was proceeding in a T.V.S. Motor Cycle as a pillion rider along with one Ramesh towards Pavagada from their native and when they reached near Macharajanahalli at that time, one Eicher being driven by its driver with high speed in a rash and negligent manner came from Pavagada side and dashed to the victim vehicle and caused the accident. Due to the accident, the rider Ramesh died at the spot and the claimant sustained injuries and fractures. Immediately, he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Hindupur and he took treatment as inpatient for one month. Further, he was shifted to Balaji Nursing Home, Hindupur and was treated as inpatient - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13429 MFA No. 7067 of 2014 for one month. He spent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medicine, transportation and other incidental charges. During the course of the treatment, he had undergone surgery. It is the case of the claimant that he was working as employee in a private factory and earning an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month and he has produced the salary certificate. He has examined the doctor and the doctor has stated that he has sustained 26% disability to the whole body. 3. The Tribunal had disbelieved the disability, the evidence of the doctor and granted the compensation as per the table given below: Sl. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1. Pain and sufferings : Rs. 10,000/- 2. Medical Expenses : Rs. 35,518/- 3. Loss of amenities : Rs. 10,000/- 4. 5. Loss of earning during laid up period Transportation, Nourished food and attendant charges : : Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 6,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 79,518/- 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that when the doctor had deposed that the claimant - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13429 MFA No. 7067 of 2014 had sustained 26% disability to the whole body, the Tribunal had not granted any amount. Even under the other heads also, the amount that was granted by the Tribunal is on the lower side. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/ Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had rightly granted the compensation based on the evidence available on record. The Tribunal had rightly not considered the evidence of the doctor who had treated him after three years and admittedly as on that day there were no fresh injuries. He submits that there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The first issue is with regard to the evidence of the doctor. The doctor had given the evidence that the claimant had sustained 26% as disability to the whole body. He has not assessed the limb disability. The doctor had spoken about the X-rays that were taken and the malunion of the fracture. Without assessing what is the disability to the limb, the doctor had held that the disability to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13429 MFA No. 7067 of 2014 the whole body is 26%. The Tribunal ought to have considered the said evidence and ought to have assessed the disability reasonably. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to take 5% as the disability. Under the head of loss of future earning, an amount of Rs.64,800/- is granted (Rs.6,000x12x18x5/100). As the claimant had sustained one fracture, under the head of pain and suffering, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.40,000/-. The Tribunal had rightly granted an amount of Rs.35,518/- towards medical expenses and no interference is called for. Towards transportation, nourished food and attendant charges, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.15,000/-. Then coming to the loss of earning during the laid up period, the Tribunal had granted a reasonable amount of Rs.18,000/- and no enhancement is called for. 7. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala vs. M. Malathi and Another1, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. 1 (2014) 11 SCC 178 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13429 MFA No. 7067 of 2014 8. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: SL. No. Heads Compensation Awarded by Tribunal Compensation Awarded by this Court 1. Pain and sufferings : Rs. 10,000/- 2. Medical Expenses : Rs. 35,518/- 40,000/- 35,518/- 3. Loss of amenities : Rs. 10,000/- 20,000/- 4. 5. 6. Loss of earning during laid up period Transportation, Nourished food and attendant charges Loss of future earning 6. Legal Expenses TOTAL Enhancement Rs. 18,000/- 18,000/- : : Rs. 6,000/- 15,000/- : Rs. : Rs. : Rs. : Rs. 00/- 00/- 64,800/- 10,000/- 79,518/- 1,83,318/- 1,03,800/- 9. Altogether, the claimant is entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.1,83,318/-. 10. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.79,518/- to Rs.1,83,318/-. The Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13429 MFA No. 7067 of 2014 i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ii) The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security. iii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. iv) On 13.11.2017, the delay of 313 days is condoned by this court, on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest, in case of enhancement. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interest for the delay period. v) No costs. vi) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 3 Sl No.: 11