Karnataka High Court
Sri Cherian C.T vs The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance ... on 2 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30650
MFA No. 6864 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 6864 OF 2013 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI CHERIAN C.T.
S/O LATE C S THOMAS
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT CHIRAMEL NO.14
P/21, KRC ROAD
DODDAGUBBI POST
BANGALORE-560 077 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
MANGALYA PUNARBHAV
2ND FLOOR, 132, BRIGADE ROAD
BANGALORE, BY ITS MANAGER
2. SMT DEVI J.
Digitally signed by W/O JEEVAN R, NO.50, WARD 28
PRAJWAL A ANNA NAGAR, 7TH STREET
Location: HIGH THIRUVANNAMALAI-606 601 ...RESPONDENTS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADV. FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 9.12.2014;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 8.11.2012
PASSED IN MVC NO. 2512/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL.
JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT,-V, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE, (SCCH.NO.5), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30650
MFA No. 6864 of 2013
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the petitioner is challenging the
judgment and award dated 08.11.2012 passed in
M.V.C.No.2512/2020 by the MACT-V, Court of Small
Causes, Bangalore City (for short, 'Tribunal').
2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the
parties will be referred to as per the status before the
Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 25.01.2011 at
5.00 a.m., while the petitioner was traveling in a car
bearing Reg.No.KA-50/M-5214 near Biocon U turn,
Hebbagodi, Bangalore, a Lorry bearing
Reg.No.TN.25/M-6565 dashed against the car. Due to
which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries to his
right leg. He was treated at Hosmat Hospital and
Chaya Hospital, Bangalore, under hospitalization. The
NC: 2024:KHC:30650
petitioner was an Ex-servicemen and Civil Engineer. He
approached the Tribunal seeking grant of
compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. The claim was
opposed by the insurer of the Lorry. The Tribunal after
hearing both the parties, allowed the claim petition
granting Rs.8,00,000/- with 6% interest. Pleading
inadequacy and seeking enhancement of
compensation, the petitioner has filed this appeal on
various grounds.
4. Heard Sri Shripad V. Shastri, learned
counsel for petitioner and Sri Ravi S. Samprathi,
learned counsel for insurance company.
5. It is contended by of the learned counsel for
petitioner that the petitioner being a Civil Engineer,
served the nation as soldier and after his retirement he
was doing civil contract work and earning money apart
from his pension. Pension is a meager one and he has
to eckout his livelihood independently and to that
extent, he has produced Agreement for having
NC: 2024:KHC:30650
engaged in the construction work. There is a fracture
and dislocation of the right knee, he was under
hospitalization for more than 36 days. The petitioner
was under external fixator for a period of 3 months, in
spite of multiple surgery he was unable to recover. He
has suffered loss of sensation, inability to squat and
injuries made him to suffer lot. The Tribunal has not
considered these aspects and the compensation
assessed is on lower side. No compensation is
assessed towards incidental charges and loss of future
income and sought for enhancement.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for insurance
company has contended that the petitioner being an
ex-servicemen is drawing the pension, there is no
proof that after his retirement he is doing civil contract
work. There is no loss of future income on account of
the accident. PW.2-Dr.Deepu, is the Plastic Surgeon,
who has deposed that the petitioner is a diabetic
patient and because of diabetic, the injuries have
NC: 2024:KHC:30650
aggravated and not on account of the accident. For
these reasons, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the
compensation and since the petitioner is a pensioner,
has not considered his loss of future income and he
has supported the impugned judgment.
7. I gave anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the records.
8. The accident in question is not in dispute.
The medical records pointed out that the petitioner has
sustained injuries and he being the victim of an
accident, entitled to claim compensation.
9. The Tribunal assessed the compensation as
follows:
Sl.No. Particulars Rs.
1. Towards pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
2. Towards medical expenses Rs.6,75,000/-
3. Towards loss of income during Rs. 30,000/-
treatment period
4. Towards loss of amenities and Rs. 35,000/-
unhappiness
5 Towards future medical expenses Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs.8,00,000/-
NC: 2024:KHC:30650
10. Wound certificate and the hospital records
show that there is a dislocation and fracture of right
knee joint and also mandible fracture. The petitioner
was under hospitalization for three times; first time
from 25.01.2011 till 07.02.2011 for 12 days, second
time from 13.02.2011 till 05.03.2011 for 22 days and
third time from 07.09.2011 to 08.09.2011 for 2 days,
in all for 36 days, during which he has spent money
towards attendant, food and nourishment as well as
traveling. Medical bills constitutes a sum of
Rs.7,23,732/-, out of which, portion of the bills have
been paid and have been cancelled. The Tribunal,
considering the same, has rightly assessed the medical
expenses at Rs.6,50,000/-.
11. The petitioner being not only an ex-
servicemen, also a Civil Engineer, and earning
handsome amount and he is receiving pension of
Rs.5,500/- per month, out of which he cannot sustain
NC: 2024:KHC:30650
his livelihood independently and he has to work for
livelihood. Evidence spoken to by PW.2-Dr.Deepu,
Plastic surgeon, having regard to the facts and
circumstances, it may not be possible to accept 55.8%
of whole body disability. The petitioner was doing
supervisory work in construction, loss of supervision
could be assessed at Rs.8,000/-. For lower limb
disability will be generally considered at 25% of the
whole body whereas the petitioner has sustained
55.8% of disability as spoken by the Doctor, which can
be assessed at 20% to the whole body. Accordingly he
has to be compensated for loss of future income.
12. Compensation awarded by the tribunal
towards pain and sufferings and loss of amenities is
inadequate. The Doctor has assessed future medical
expenses at Rs.50,000/- and in the absence of proper
proof, it can be treated at Rs.25,000/-. Keeping all
these aspects into consideration, Rs.60,000/- is
assessed towards pain and sufferings, towards medical
NC: 2024:KHC:30650
expenses at Rs.6,50,000/-, towards loss of income
during laid up period at Rs.48,000/- (Rs.8,000/- x 6
months), towards loss of amenities and discomfort at
Rs.75,000/-, future medical expenses at Rs.25,000/-,
towards attendant charges at Rs.8,000/- for 36 days,
towards traveling expenses at Rs.10,000/- and towards
food and nourishment at Rs.25,000/-.
13. As regarding loss of future income, as
discussed above, he has suffered 20% of whole body
disability and Rs.8,000/- towards loss of supervision.
As on the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 62
years and multiplier applicable is '7'. Hence, loss of
income due to disability will be Rs.8,000/-
x12x7x20%=1,34,400/-. Therefore, the petitioner is
entitled for the compensation as under:
Sl.No. Particulars Rs.
1. Towards pain and agony Rs. 60,000/-
2. Towards medical expenses Rs.6,50,000/-
3. Towards loss of income Rs. 48,000/-
during laid up
4. Towards loss of amenities Rs. 75,000/-
5. Towards future medical Rs. 25,000/-
expenses
NC: 2024:KHC:30650
6. Towards attendant charges Rs. 8,000/-
7. Towards traveling charges Rs. 10,000/-
8. Towards food & Rs. 25,000/-
nourishment
9. Towards loss of future Rs.1,34,400/-
income
Total Rs.10,35,400/-
Less: compensation awarded by the Rs. 8,00,000/-
Tribunal
Enhanced compensation Rs.2,35,400/-
14. It is the just compensation which the
petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of
the case. Accordingly, the appeal merits consideration,
in the result, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment and award of the Tribunal is
modified.
(iii) The petitioner would be entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.2,35,400/-
with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till deposit excluding interest on
future medical expenses
iv) The insurance company shall deposit the
compensation amount along with accrued
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30650
interest within eight weeks from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
SD/-
(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA)
JUDGE
MKM
