Karnataka High Court
Sri. Parvathamma vs M/S. Primemover on 5 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31039
MFA No. 6448 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6448 OF 2022(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. PARVATHAMMA,
W/O. MUNIKRISHANAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT VARADAGANAHALLI
VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALA POST
AVANI HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed by (BY SRI. SUSHMITHA G.,ADVOCATE)
AASEEFA
PARVEEN
AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. M/S. PRIMEMOVER
MOBILITY TECHNOLOGIES
SY. NO. 5/1, DEVARABISANAHALLI,
NEAR SAKRA HOSPITAL,
BELLANDURU,
BANGALORE - 560 003.
BY MANAGER.
2. THE RELIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
V FLOOR, WEST WING,
CENTENARY BUILDING,
M. G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
REP BY ITS MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31039
MFA No. 6448 of 2022
V/O. DATED 19.07.2024,
NOTICE TO R1 - IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.07.2022 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 370/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER PRINCIPAL MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (SCCH-1),
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Smt.Sushmitha.G, learned counsel for the
appellant and also Sri.Ashok.N.Patil, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the Prl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru in MVC No.370/2021 dated 02.07.2022. The
appellant filed an application claiming compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a road
traffic accident. The Tribunal through the impugned order
awarded a sum of Rs.6,57,500/- as compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC:31039
Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by
the claimant.
3. Making her submission with regard to the
merits of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the appellant sustained multiple injuries due
to the accident and became permanently disabled. The
appellant underwent number of surgeries and even then
she could not attain normality. Learned counsel states that
she spent huge amount for her medical expenses. Learned
counsel also states that though all the relevant facts were
established before the Tribunal including the aspect of
disability, the Tribunal awarded a meager sum as
compensation and therefore, the present appeal is filed.
Learned counsel ultimately seeks for enhancement of
compensation.
4. On the other hand Sri.Ashok.N.Patil, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 - insurance company submits
that the amount awarded as compensation by the claims
Tribunal is proper and appropriate. Learned counsel states
NC: 2024:KHC:31039
that Pw.2 is not the doctor who treated the appellant.
Learned counsel also states that in the cross examination
Pw.2 admitted that there is no bone loss or muscle loss
and that there is no shortening of limb. Learned counsel
contents that the appellant therefore, attained normality
and thus amount awarded as compensation needs no
interference.
5. Giving reply to the submission made by the
learned counsel for respondent No.2, Smt.Sushmitha.G,
learned counsel for the appellant contends that Pw.2
during the chief examination itself has stated that the
appellant was on regular follow up and on 05.03.2021
she got admitted to hospital again due to non-union of
tibia and underwent closed reduction and internal fixation
with IMIL nail for the right tibia and the appellant still is
unable to walk independently, need support and unable to
sit down.
6. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained
degloving injury of the right knee joint, open type II
NC: 2024:KHC:31039
displaced fracture of the right tibia and fibula and open
fracture of the proximal phalanx of the 4th toe and shaft of
5th metatarsal which are grievous in nature. Also is not in
dispute that the appellant took extensive treatment for the
injuries sustained. When Pw.2 assessed the disability in
respect of whole body as 19%, the Tribunal took the
percentage of disability as 10% for the purpose of
calculating the compensation. However, having considered
the nature of injuries sustained and more so the evidence
of Pw.2, this Court considers desirable to take the
disability in respect of whole body as 15%.
7. The Tribunal took the notional income of the
appellant as Rs.14,500/- p.m. which needs no
interference. There is no serious dispute of the fact that
the appellant was aged about 47 years by the date of
accident. Having taken the notional income of the
appellant as Rs.14,500/- p.m. and the age as 47 years by
the date of accident, this Court considers desirable to add
25% towards future prospects as per the decision of the
NC: 2024:KHC:31039
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680. The appropriate multiplier to be
applied is 13. Therefore, applying the above parameters,
the amount that is required to be awarded under the head
loss of future earnings is as under:
Monthly income Rs.14,500/-
Annual income Rs.1,74,000/-
Add: 25% towards future Rs.2,17,500/-
prospects
On applying appropriate Rs.28,27,500/-
multiplier 13
Functional disability in respect Rs.4,24,125/-
of whole body being 15%
8. Considering the nature of injuries sustained,
this Court is of the view that the appellant would have not
attended her normal pursuits atleast for a period of 6
months. Therefore, loss of income during laid up period
comes to Rs.87,000/-. Also this Court considers desirable
to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head food,
NC: 2024:KHC:31039
nourishment and attendant charges. Thus the
compensation which the appellant is entitled to under
different heads will be as under:
Sl. Description Amount
No
1 Compensation for
Rs.60,000
Pain and suffering
2 Food, nourishment and
Rs.20,000
attendant charges
3 Medical Expenses Rs.2,18,300
4 Future medical expenses Rs.25,000
5 Loss of future earning Rs.4,24,125
6 Loss of income during
Rs.87,000
laid up period
7 Transportation charges Rs.5,000
8 Loss of amenities Rs.50,000
Total Rs.8,89,425
9. In the light of the forgoing discussion, the
following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The compensation that is granted by the
Prl.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru through orders in MVC
No.370/2021 dated 02.07.2022 is
NC: 2024:KHC:31039
enhanced from Rs.6,57,500/- to
Rs.8,89,425/-.
(iii) The enhanced amount shall carry interest
at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till the date of deposit.
(iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount within a period of
8(eight) weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
(v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted
to withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
NS
CT:TSM
