Karnataka High Court
Sri Byra Reddy vs The National Insurance Co Ltd on 11 January, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:2683
MFA No. 5298 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5298 OF 2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. BYRA REDDY,
S/O LATE VENKATAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT DINNAMINDAPALLI VILLAGE,
CHINTHAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT,
CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.VASANTHAPPA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX,
Digitally signed
by CHAITHRA NO. 144, M.G ROAD,
P BENGALURLU -560001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. SRI.NARESH @ NARESHA,
S/O MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE,
CHINTHAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT,
CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562101.
3. SRI.SURESH,
S/O MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:2683
MFA No. 5298 of 2020
R/AT KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE,
CHINTHAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT,
CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SEETHA RAMA RAO B.C AND SRI.ANUP SEETHARAMA
RAO., ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 21.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.273/2015 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT,
CHINTAMANI, PATRLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
challenging the impugned judgment and award dated
21.01.2020 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T.,
Chinthamani, Chikkaballapur (for short 'the Tribunal') in
M.V.C No.273/2015. This appeal is founded on the premise
of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellants
seek enhancement of compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC:2683
2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per
their status before the Tribunal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for appellants and
learned counsel for respondents.
4. Brief facts of the case are as under;
That on 11.08.2015 at about 7.30 a.m., when the
claimant was traveling in Hero Honda vehicle bearing
No.KA-04-HH-239, near Kottahudya Village, at that time,
a two wheeler Hero Honda Passion bearing No.KA-40-W-
7292 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the vehicle of the claimant, due to which, the
claimant suffered grievous injuries and immediately he
was shifted to nearby Deccan Hospital. After first aid
treatment, he was referred to the Hosmat Hospital,
Bengaluru for better treatment. The claimant was inpatient
from 11.08.2015 to 17.08.2015 and is still in continuous
follow up treatment and he was also advised bed rest for
three months. It is pleaded at the time of accident, the
claimant was a Class-II contractor and as well as an
NC: 2024:KHC:2683
Agriculturist earning a monthly income of Rs.25,000/- per
month from Agricultural activities and Rs.3,00,000/- per
annum as Class - II contractor and totally he was earning
Rs.50,000/- per month from both sources. Due to the
impact of the accident and the injuries suffered, the
claimant has lost his right toe and thereby he has been
financially deprived of future earning capacity and
mentally weakened, he filed claim a petition seeking
compensation against the respondent Insurance Company
and the owner of the offending vehicle.
5. Respondent No.1 has filed the statement of
objection, whereas respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not contest
the matter. Respondent No.1 denied that the accident was
caused due to the negligence of the rider of the offending
vehicle and pleaded that there was violation of the terms
and conditions of the policy by the insured and so also
denied the age, avocation and income of the claimant.
Hence, he sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:2683
6. After contest, on the basis of pleadings, the
tribunal framed the relevant issues for consideration.
7. In order to substantiate the issues and to establish
his case, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and got
marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. He also examined the Doctor as
PW.2 where respondent examined the PSI as RW.1 and
Senior Manager of his Insurance Company as RW.2 and
got marked documents as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.
8. After considering the material evidence placed on
record both oral and documentary and on hearing the
submissions of both parties, the Tribunal awarded a total
compensation of Rs.2,26,000/- along with interest at 9%
per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization and directed respondent No.1 to deposit the
compensation amount holding that respondent Nos.1 to 3
are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation
amount.
9. It is the vehement contention of the learned
counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal has committed
NC: 2024:KHC:2683
an error in not awarding just and reasonable
compensation and ignored the fact that the claimant has
got deformity in the right foot and ankle and amputation
of the right 3rd toe of Metacarpal shaft and malunion of
4th toe due to which he is unable to walk with bare foot
and he suffers from various deficiencies which affects his
efficiency in financial earning capacity. It is also pleaded
that under other several heads, the Tribunal has awarded
meager and insufficient compensation contrary to the well
establish principles and guidelines laid down by this Court
and the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is further contended that
the Tribunal has disbelieved the version of the Doctor Pw.2
who has stated on both that disability of 15% due to the
amputation of 3rd toe and other medical deformities. On
these basis he seeks for enhancement of compensation.
10. Per contra, learned counsel representing the
Insurance Company vehemently contends that there is no
material irregularity or illegality in the judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal which has rightly taken into
NC: 2024:KHC:2683
consideration the age, avocation, income and the
magnitude of the injuries suffered and had rightly
assessed the compensation which is just and reasonable
and the same does not call for interference.
11. Having heard learned counsel for claimant and
the respondent - Insurance Company, having perused the
original records, the impugned judgment and the exhibits
relied by the parties, it is not in dispute that the accident
occurred on 11.08.2015 involving the two vehicles wherein
the claimant got injured and suffered grievous injuries
leading to the amputation of right 3rd toe, deformities in
the foot on the ankle thereby sustaining certain deficiency
and deformities in the foot and ankle. Though the claimant
has pleaded that he was working as a Class-II contractor,
he has not produced any proof of income so also from the
agricultural sources.
12. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under
the head of Medical expenses an amount of Rs.1,66,000/-
which is the actual medical bills produced and hence, the
NC: 2024:KHC:2683
same does not call for interference. Towards pain and
suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-. I am in
agreement with the learned counsel for the
appellant/claimant that it is on the lower side and the
same requires to be enhanced substantially in view of the
fact that the claimant has suffered an amputation to his
3rd right toe and deformities to the right foot on the ankle.
Hence, under this head an additional amount of
Rs.50,000/- is awarded. Towards Attendant charges and
extra nutritious food and conveyance expenses, the
Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-. Claimant was inpatient
for 7 days and same does not call for interference.
Towards loss of income due to laid up period, the Tribunal
has not awarded any income. I am in agreement with the
learned counsel for the claimant that the Tribunal has
committed an error in not awarding any amount under this
head. Having lost the right toe and deformity to the right
ankle on the foot, it is not possible for the claimant to get
back to work instantaneously after discharge from the
hospital. In the said circumstances of fracture it would
NC: 2024:KHC:2683
require at least 3 to 4 months. In the present case where
the claimant has lost his toe due to pain agony and
discomfort he would have sustained similar period of
recuperation to get back to normal work. Therefore, taking
the income for the accident year of 2015 as Rs.9,000/- per
month, at the rate of 3 months, Rs.27,000/- is awarded
under this head. Towards loss of future amenities and
happiness the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- which is
on the lower side and hence this Court deem it appropriate
to award an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- under this
head. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation
towards loss of future income due to disability and the
same is answered by the Tribunal by holding that the
claimant who was a Class-II contractor has now been
elevated as a Class-I contractor and there is no functional
disability in his work as a contractor. Therefore, the
Tribunal has not awarded any amount under this head. I
do not find any reasons to interfere on this ground as the
claimant is compensated for the loss of injury, pain and
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2683
suffering and the amenities and future happiness under
other heads.
13. In view of the discussion made here and above,
the claimant would be entitled to total compensation of
Rs.3,53,000/- as against 2,26,000/- as mentioned in the
table below.
Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of future earnings -
Pain and sufferings Rs.70,000-00
Food and nourishment Rs.20,000-00
Medical expenses Rs.1,66,000-00
Laid up period Rs.27,000-00
9,000x3=27,000/-.
Future amenities Rs.70,000-00
(20,000 + 50,000)
TOTAL 3,53,000-00
14. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:2683
ii) The judgment and award dated 21.01.2020
passed by the Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T.,
Chinthamani, Chikkaballapur in
MVC.No.273/2015 is modified;
iii) The claimants would be entitled to a sum of
Rs.3,53,000/- as against Rs.2,26,000/- with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
petition till realization;
iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be
paid by the respondent-Insurance Company
within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order with interest at
6% per annum on the balance compensation
amount.
v) All other terms and conditions stipulated by
the tribunal shall stand intact with regard to
apportionment and fixed deposit.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RMS
