Karnataka High Court
Sri Prasanna vs M/S United India Insurance Co Ltd on 14 November, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.7480/2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI PRASANNA
S/O PUTTARAMU,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT NO.125, KALLIMELE DODDI,
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
C/O PUTTAMADEGOWDA,
S/O LATE MADEGWODA,
JANATHA COLONY,
TOLLGATE, 1ST CROSS,
MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI H.B.SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/s. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICER, THIRD PARTY HUB,
6TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVANA,
HUDSON CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-9
2. SRI M. MADAPPA
MAJOR
S/O MADAPPA,
NO.303/2, DEVARAHALLI
2
K.M. DODDI, MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 [THROUGH VC];
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED 10.01.2017)
THIS M.F.A., IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:23.5.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.1843/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDL.
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-Insurance
Company.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and
award dated 23.05.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.1843/2013 on the
file of the XII Additional Small Causes Judge & Member, SCCH-8,
at Bengaluru ('the Tribunal' for short).
3. The parties are referred to as per their original
rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the
convenience of the Court.
4. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before
the Tribunal is that he met with an accident on 21.01.2013 and
suffered the permanent disability.
5. In support of his claim, he examined himself as
P.W.1 and also examined the Doctor as P.W.2, who assessed the
disability of 9% to the whole body. The Tribunal considering the
material taken the income of Rs.5,000/- per month, considered
only 5% disability and awarded compensation in all together
Rs.1,11,300/-. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the
appellant - claimant .
6. The main contention of the claimant before this
Court is that he has suffered fracture of 4th and 5th proximal
phalanx of right hand and open fracture proximal 1/3rd of shaft
of radius. Apart from that, there were five other injuries viz.,
lacerated wound over right elbow joint, lacerated wound over
right little finger, abrasion over right, ring middle and over index
finger, lacerated wound over dorsum of right hand and right
upper limb-avulsion injury-crushed anterior part of elbow, loss of
muscles exposed. It is contended that he was an inpatient for a
period of one month and the meager compensation of
Rs.1,11,300/- had been awarded. Hence, it requires an
interference of this Court.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Insurance Company would submit that the matter
was considered in the Lok Adalath for an amount of
Rs.1,75,000/- but the matter was not settled in the Lok Adalath.
Hence, it does not require any interference.
8. Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal
of the material available on record, there were fracture of 4th and
5th proximal phalanx of right hand and open fracture proximal
1/3rd of shaft of radius. Apart from that, there were five other
injuries viz., lacerated wound over right elbow joint, lacerated
wound over right little finger, abrasion over right, ring middle
and over index finger, lacerated wound over dorsum of right
hand and right upper limb-avulsion injury-crushed anterior part
of elbow, loss of muscles exposed. The Doctor has assessed the
disability of 26.296% to the right lower limb and 9% to the
whole body. The Tribunal failed to take note of the nature of
injuries suffered by the claimant. He was an inpatient for a
period of one month from 23.01.2013 to 23.02.2013 and he had
undergone wound debridement surgery. The Tribunal also failed
to take note of the long period of treatment i.e., one month.
However, awarded only an amount of Rs.25,000/- on the head of
pain and sufferings, the same is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-.
9. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.12,300/- towards medical expenses, which is based on the
documentary evidence. Hence, it does not require any
interference.
10. However, the Tribunal committed an error in
awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards Conveyance,
Special Diet and Attendant Charges. Since he was an inpatient
for a period of 30 days, it is appropriate to enhance the same to
Rs.30,000/-.
11. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.10,000/- towards Loss of income during laid up period for a
period of two months. Having considered the fact that he was
an inpatient for a period of one month and suffered the fracture
of 4th and 5th proximal phalanx of right hand and open fracture
proximal 1/3rd of shaft of radius, it requires a minimum period of
four months time for uniting the fractures and for rest. It is an
accident of the year 2013, the notional income would be
Rs.8,000/- per month. Having taken the notional income of
Rs.8,000/- per month for a period of four months, it comes to
Rs.32,000/- (8000x4) as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
12. The Tribunal also committed an error in taking the
disability. When the claimant has suffered the fracture of radius
as well as two fractures of metacarpacl i.e., of 4th and 5th
proximal phalanx of right hand and open fracture proximal 1/3rd
of shaft of radius and also he has suffered lacerated wound over
right elbow joint, lacerated wound over right little finger,
abrasion over right, ring middle and over index finger, lacerated
wound over dorsum of right hand and right upper limb-avulsion
injury-crushed anterior part of elbow, loss of muscles exposed,
though the Doctor has assessed the disability of 9%, which is
also on lesser side, the Tribunal has committed an error in only
taking 5% disability. Hence, it is appropriate to take the
disability of 13%. Having taken the disability of 13%, the
notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month, he is aged about 21
years at the time of the accident, the relevant multiplier
applicable would be 18, the loss of future income due to
disability comes to Rs.2,24,640/- (8000x12x18x13/100).
13. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on
the head of 'Loss of Amenities'. Hence, it is appropriate to
award an amount of Rs.30,000/- on the head of 'Loss of
Amenities'.
14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed-in-part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal dated 23.05.2014 passed in
M.V.C.No.1843/2013 is modified granting
compensation of Rs.3,78,940/- as against
Rs.1,11,300/- awarded by the Tribunal with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of
petition till its realisation.
(iii) The respondent - Insurance Company is
directed to pay the compensation amount with
interest within six weeks from today.
(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records
to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
cp*
