Karnataka High Court
Chandrakumar vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd on 12 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45213
MFA No. 1184 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1184 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
CHANDRAKUMAR,
S/O LATE PADMANABHAN,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.33/1, 5TH CROSS,
DODDAMMA LAYOUT, MANOARYANAPALYA,
R T NAGAR (P), BANGALORE - 32.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
R.O. 2B, UNITY BUILDING,
ANNEXE MISSION ROAD,
Digitally BANGALORE - 01, BY ITS MANAGER.
signed by JAI
JYOTHI J
2. MR. CHANDRASHEKAR BABU B,
Location:
HIGH S/O BRAHMALINGE GOWDA B,
COURT OF MAJOR, R/AT NO. 1724, 6TH MAIN,
KARNATAKA 7TH CROSS, RPC LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. LATHA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 VIDE ORDER DATED 19.10.2022 NOTICE
DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45213
MFA No. 1184 of 2019
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.5787/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE & MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the claimant aggrieved by
the award passed in M.V.C.No.5787/2017 dated
20.10.2018 on the file of I Additional SCJ & Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-11) seeking
enhancement of the compensation. The claim petition was
filed seeking compensation of an amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant
in the accident.
2. According to the claimant, he was working as a
Sales Executive and earning an amount of Rs.12,000/- per
month. The doctor had deposed that due to the accident,
NC: 2023:KHC:45213
the claimant sustained Acute anterior wedge compression
fracture of D12 vertebra with neurological deficts and
pilondidal sinus and injuries to other parts of the body.
According to the claimant, he had spent huge amounts
towards the treatment.
3. As per the opinion of the doctor, the claimant had
sustained disability of 10% to the spine and disability of
10% to the whole body. The Court below had considered
the disability at 4%. The Court below had observed that
conservative treatment was given and the fractures are
united. The Court below had granted global compensation
of an amount of Rs.70,000/-.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant
submits that the evidence of the doctor is the claimant has
to use the belt all through his life. He submits that
sometimes the injury to the vertebra may lead to further
complications. This aspect was not considered by the
Court below and had not applied the multiplier and
NC: 2023:KHC:45213
granted the compensation. It is submitted that granting
global compensation of an amount of Rs.70,000/- is not
correct. It is further submitted that because of the injuries
sustained by him and for the treatment, he could not
resume his work and there is loss of income. It is
submitted that the compensation that was awarded by the
Tribunal was not just and reasonable.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company submits that considering the fact that, by
conservative treatment, the injuries sustained by the
claimant were healed and it is not having an impact on his
future earning, the Court below had granted the
compensation globally and no grounds are made out
seeking enhancement of the compensation.
6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the entire material on record. In this case, there
is an injury sustained by the claimant to the D12 vertebra.
No surgeries were conducted and only by way of
NC: 2023:KHC:45213
conservative treatment it was healed. The doctor had
opined that the claimant had sustained 10% disability to
the whole body. The Court below had taken 4% as the
disability. But, however, the Court below had granted the
global compensation. This Court is not able to appreciate
the same, the Court below was not right in granting a
global compensation. Without any discussion and on what
basis the compensation was not granted under different
heads.
7. In this case, the claimant is a Sales Executive,
where the physical activity is very much included and
there is a lot of physical exertion for him. Particularly,
considering the evidence of the doctor that through out his
life, he has to wear the belt. This Court is inclined to
consider the disability at 4% by applying the multiplier.
Then coming to loss of future income, though it is stated
that he was earning an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month,
nobody is examined in that regard. As this is an accident
of the year 2016, this court is inclined to take Rs.9,500/-
NC: 2023:KHC:45213
as the income. Hence, it comes to Rs.9,500x12x14x4/100
= Rs.63,840/- under the head of loss of future
income. Under the head of pain and suffering,
considering the injuries, an amount of Rs.40,000/- is
granted.
8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company
submits that as there was no record to show that he was
on leave for three months, the Court below had rightly not
granted any amount under the head of loss of income
during the laid up period. Considering the injuries
sustained by the claimant and the hospitalization and the
recovery, without any evidence, this Court is inclined to
grant the income for three months. Hence, under the
head of loss of income during the laid up period, this
Court is granting an amount of Rs.28,500/- (i.e.,
Rs.9,500x3). Towards medical expenses, the Court
below had granted an amount of Rs.14,691/-. This Court
finds no reason to interfere. Coming to the head of
transport, attendant charges and extra nourishment
NC: 2023:KHC:45213
an amount of Rs.15,000/- is granted. Considering the
injury to the vertebra, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is
granted under the head of loss of amenities.
9. 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.
Altogether the claimant is entitled for an amount of
Rs.1,97,031/-.
10. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the
compensation under the following heads:
Heads Compensation
Awarded
1. Pain and Sufferings : Rs. 40,000/-
2. Loss of income during the laid : Rs. 28,500/-
up period
3. Loss of amenities : Rs. 25,000/-
(2014) 11 SCC 178
NC: 2023:KHC:45213
4. Medical expenses : Rs. 14,691/-
5. Loss of future income : Rs. 63,840/-
6. Transport, attendant charges : Rs. 15,000/-
and extra nourishment
7. Legal Expenses : Rs. 10,000/-
TOTAL : Rs.
1,97,031/-
11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, by
enhancing the compensation from an amount of
Rs.70,000/- to an amount of Rs.1,97,031/- setting aside
the award passed in M.V.C.No.5787/2017 dated
20.10.2018.
i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
realization.
ii. The respondent - insurance company shall
deposit the amount within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the
NC: 2023:KHC:45213
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. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
SD/-
JUDGE
MEG
CT: BHK
