Karnataka High Court
Smt. Savithramma vs Smt. Doddamma on 4 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13908
MFA No. 3405 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3405 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
W/O. RAMACHANDRA
R/AT. SANTHEMOGENAHALI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. DODDAMMA
W/O KARIYAIAH
R/AT. SANTHEMOGENAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK-562 160.
Digitally signed by
MOUNESHWARAPPA
NAGARATHNA
2. THE RELIANCE GENERAL
Location: HIGH INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 5TH FLOOR, CENTURY BUILDING
M G ROAD,
BANGALORE - 01
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ASHOK N.PATIL.,ADVOCATE FOR R2
R1 SERVED/UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.593/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
AND ADDITIONAL MACT CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13908
MFA No. 3405 of 2017
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the
judgment and award dated 18-10-2016 passed in M.V.C.
No.593 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C.,
& Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Channapattana,
whereby, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.90,700/- as
compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before
the Tribunal.
3. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation
on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the
accident that took place on 06-8-2014 at about 9.15 a.m. It is
the case of the claimant that after the accident, he was shifted
to General Hospital, channapatna and later he was shifted to
Mathrushree Nurshing Home, Channapatna, where she took
treatment, X-rays were done, and the Doctors noticed the
fracture of clavical bone and injury on head, which is simple in
NC: 2024:KHC:13908
nature, for which she underwent surgery in Mathrshree
Orthopaedic and Trauma Centre, Channapatna.
4. The Tribunal considering the evidence on record at
Exs.P1 to P.12 and considering the oral evidence of PWs.1 and
2, awarded compensation of Rs.90,700/-.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits
that the Tribunal has failed to consider the injuries sustained by
the claimant and the amount that was spent towards
treatment. As per the wound certificate, injury No.1 is grievous
in nature and injuries No.2 is simple in nature and the Tribunal
has failed to grant reasonable compensation amount for the
said injuries. He further submitted that the Tribunal has not
awarded fair compensation in respect of the heads, Pain and
suffering, loss of amenities, Loss of earning, medical
expenditure and loss of future permanent disabiltiy. Further,
the Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the head,
loss of income during laid up period. Hence, he prayed to allow
the appeal.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance
Company submits that the Tribunal considering the medical
NC: 2024:KHC:13908
evidence as well as oral evidence and other exhibits has
reasonably granted the compensation. He further submitted
that no grounds are made out for seeking enhancement of
compensation.
7. As there is no dispute regarding injuries sustained by
the claimant in a road traffic accident occurred on
06-08-2014 due to rash and negligent driving of Autorickshaw
bearing registration No.KA-42-A-3001 driven by its driver and
liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point
that arises for my consideration in the appeal is:
"Whether quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for
any enhancement?"
8. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and perusing the judgment and award of the Tribunal, I
am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is not just and reasonable, it is on the lower side and hence, it
is required to be enhanced.
9. As per Ex.P2-Wound Certificate, the claimant
sustained the following injuries:
NC: 2024:KHC:13908
1.Pain on right and left clavical resulting in
fracture of clavical..
2. CLW on centre of head 'L" shaped 6 c.m. x 0.5
c.m. x 0.5 c.m.
As per the opinion of the Doctor, injury No.1 is grievous
in nature and injury Nos.2 is simple in nature. The claimant was
treated at General Hospital, Channapatna, and Mathrushree
Orthopaedic and Trauma Centte, Channapatana, where she was
treated as in-patient for a period of fifteen days. The injuries
sustained and treatment taken by the claimant is also
supported by the oral evidence of the claimant and the Doctor,
who were examined as PWs.1 and 2, respectively.
10. In this case, the Tribunal has observed that the
claimant sustained in all two injuries, viz., injury No.1 is
grievous in nature and injury No.2 is simple in nature. For one
grievous injury, as per settled law, the claimant is entitled for
amount of Rs.40,000/- and towards simple injury, she is
entitled for amount of Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, the claimant is
entitled for Rs.45,000/- under the head 'pain and sufferings' as
against Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:13908
11. Considering the period of treatment, the petitioner
was treated as inpatient in the hospital. The Tribunal ought to
have granted compensation in respect of medical bills but the
Tribunal has granted only meager amount of Rs.3,000/- which
is not reasonable one. Hence, considering the nature of
injuries sustained by the claimant additional sum of Rs. 7,000/-
is granted under this head.
12. Towards 'loss of income during laid up period', the
Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under this head.
Considering the notional income for the year 2014, a sum of
Rs.8,500/- is taken into consideration. The nature of injuries
sustained by the claimant that she must have been under rest
and took treatment for a period of three months and therefore,
a sum of Rs.25,500/- (Rs.8,500/- x 3) is awarded under the
said head by taking notional income at the rate of Rs.8,500/-
per month.
13. Towards 'loss of future income', the Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs.43,200/- (Rs.4,500 X 12 X 16 X 8%),
which is not reasonable one. If the income of the claimant is
considered at Rs.8,500/- per month, then it has to be
NC: 2024:KHC:13908
calculated as Rs.8,500+8% (680) = Rs.8,500 x 12 x 14.
Therefore, it works out to Rs.1,14,240/- as against Rs.43,200/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
14. Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded a
sum of Rs.15,000/- which is not reasonable. Hence, an
additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- is granted under this
head.
15. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation in
respect of attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment
charges. Hence, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is granted under this
head.
16. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of V. MEKALA v. M. MALATHI
AND ANOTHER reported in (2014) 11 SCC 178, the claimant
is entitled for amount of Rs.10,000/- towards 'legal expenses'.
17. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the following
compensation:
NC: 2024:KHC:13908
HEADS Rs.
Pain and sufferings 45,000.00
Medical expenses 10,000.00
Loss of income during laid up period 25,500.00
Loss of future income 1,14,240.00
Loss of Amenities 25,000.00
Legal expenses 10,000.00
Food & nourishment, attendant charges 20,000.00
TOTAL 2,49,740.00
Less: Compensation awarded by the
90,700.00
Tribunal
ENHANCED COMPENSATION 1,59,040.00
18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the
extent stated herein above. The claimant is entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.2,49,740/- as against Rs.90,700/- awarded
by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum on the additional
compensation of Rs.1,59,040/- from the date of filing of the
claim petition till the date of its realisation.
19. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the additional compensation amount together with
interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment.
NC: 2024:KHC:13908
20. Out of the additional compensation, the entire
compensation amount shall be released in favour of the
petitioner on proper identification.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PSJ
