Karnataka High Court
Shambavi Shenoy vs The Partner on 7 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31595
MFA No. 344 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 344 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHAMBAVI SHENOY,
D/O PANDURANGA SHENOY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT 312, AMOGH, MICO LAYOUT,
AREKERE, 1ST STAGE
BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANNERUGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 570 076.
Digitally signed ...APPELLANT
by AASEEFA
PARVEEN (BY SMT. PAVANA B.K. FOR
Location: HIGH SRI. PRATHEEP K. C., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE PARTNER
M/S BHARATH TOURSIT
NEAR MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE
BANNAJANJE,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576101.
2. THE UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD.,
DIVISONAL OFFICE,
DIVSIONAL MANAGER,
JEWEL PLAZA, 1ST FLOOR
MARUTHI VEETHIKA,
UDUPI - 576 101.
3. PARAMESHWARAPPA P. S.,
S/O. SANNA ELLAPPA
R/O DEVASUAMDRA VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31595
MFA No. 344 of 2022
MOLAKALMURU TALUK,
CHITRDURA DISTRICT -577 535.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. SHANKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O. DATED 07.08.2024,
NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.10.2021 PASSED IN
MVC NO.380/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Smt.Pavana B.K., learned counsel who is
representing Sri.Pratheep K.C., learned counsel on record for
the appellant. Also heard Sri.C.Shankara Reddy, learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This is a claimant's appeal.
3. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udupi, in MVC
NC: 2024:KHC:31595
No.380/2018 dated 12.10.2021. As against the claim for
Rs.9,05,640/-, the Tribunal through the impugned order
awarded a sum of Rs.3,78,386/- as compensation and
aggrieved by the same, the claimant is before this Court
seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. Learned counsel Smt.Pavana submits that the
appellant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident
and became disabled. Learned counsel states that the appellant
took extensive treatment as an inpatient, underwent surgery
and was on medication for a long time. Despite of taking such
treatment, the appellant could not regain normality and still she
is suffering. Learned counsel states that the Tribunal did not
award any amount as compensation for loss of future earnings
which is highly unjustifiable. Learned counsel also states that
though the evidence of PW2 is produced and PW2 spoke in
clear terms the disability of the appellant in respect of whole
body is 28% and in respect of lower limb is 52%, yet the
Tribunal did not award any sum as compensation under the
head loss of future earnings. Learned counsel also states that
the amount awarded as compensation on all other heads is also
NC: 2024:KHC:31595
grossly low. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement of
compensation.
5. Per contra, the submission of Sri.C.Shankara
Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the
appellant is an employee. Learned counsel states that the
appellant was working by the date of accident and she
continued the same occupation. Learned counsel states that the
appellant when she got examined herself as PW1 said that she
is continuing her occupation even after the accident. Learned
counsel ultimately submits that as there is no loss of earnings
as projected by the learned counsel for the appellant, the
Tribunal had rightly declined to award any amount under the
head loss of income due to disability and thus, the award of the
Tribunal needs no interference.
6. The Tribunal discussing the employment of the
appellant and the period for which she did not attend her duty,
at Paragraph No.21 of the order observed that the appellant
was working as an employee in Brickwork India Pvt. Ltd., The
Tribunal also stated that the testimony of PW1 is that she has
not attended duty for a continuous period of two and half
NC: 2024:KHC:31595
months. The employer considered 15 days paid leave and the
remaining two months treated as loss of pay leave. The amount
awarded by Tribunal as compensation under each head is as
under:
Sl. Description Amount
No Rs.
1 Medical expenses relating
to treatment and
hospitalization and 90,886-00
medicines
2 Special diet and
12,000-00
nourishment
3 Loss of income during the
laid up period 1,00,000-00
4 Pain and sufferings
50,000-00
5 Loss of amenities
25,000-00
6 Future medical expenses
90,000-00
7 Attendant charge 5,500-00
8 Conveyance charge 5,000-00
Total Compensation 3,78,386-00
7. The Tribunal, as rightly contended by
Sri.C.Shankara Reddy for respondent No.2, observing the fact
that the appellant is continuing her occupation did not award
any amount as compensation under the head loss of earnings
due to permanent physical disability. However, it is not in
NC: 2024:KHC:31595
dispute that the appellant sustained fracture of left femur mid
shift, fracture of right proximal humerus and left fibula fracture.
8. PW2 gave evidence to the effect that the appellant
was treated with closed reduction and internal fixation with
interlocking nail and screws. He also stated that the appellant
underwent shoulder manipulation. PW2 narrated the way in
which he assessed the disability, finally stated that disability in
respect of the whole body is 28%. Even though it is taken that
the appellant is continuing her occupation, in the light of the
disability as spoken by PW2, one can infer that the appellant
might be attending her duty with difficulty. Admittedly, she
cannot attend her normal pursuits and office with ease as she
was doing prior to the date of accident. Thus, though there is
no actual loss of earnings due to disability, yet having
considered the fact that the appellant might have been
attending her duties with difficulty and also spending
expenditure more than what she might have spent for the
household activities and transportation, as she would be under
obligation to employ a house maid and to get transportation
facility due to difficulty, this Court is of the view that there is
requirement for enhancement of compensation for such
NC: 2024:KHC:31595
difficulties she is facing. This Court is also of the view that the
amount awarded as compensation towards attendant charges
and conveyance during the laid up period and the period of
treatment is grossly low. Therefore, this Court is of the view
that the global compensation that requires enhancement under
all heads including the loss sustained due to permanent
physically disability is Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus, with the foregoing
observation this Court is of the view that the amount awarded
as compensation is required to be enhanced by Rs.1,00,000/-.
9. Thus, the following
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The amount awarded as compensation by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udupi, through orders in MVC
No.380/2018 dated 12.10.2021 is enhanced by Rs.1,00,000/-.
iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
NC: 2024:KHC:31595
iv) The second respondent is directed to deposit the
enhanced sum within a period of 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
AP
CT:TSM
