Karnataka High Court
Lalithamma vs The General Manager on 5 June, 2024
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19464-DB
MFA No. 4730 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4730 OF 2022(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
LALITHAMMA
W/O. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT 4TH MAIN ROAD,
BEHIND GANESHA TEMPLE,
SADASHIVANAGARA,
TUMKUR TOWN, TUMKUR-572 102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANANTHARAMA C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER
UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
Digitally signed by
AASEEFA PARVEEN
REGIONAL OFFICE NO.7/3, 2ND FLOOR,
Location: HIGH KVD TOWER, OLD MADRAS ROAD,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA INDIRANAGARA, BENGALURU-560038.
2. K. KUMAR
S/O. KUMARVEL P.,
NO.4/5A, MOTTAIYAN STREET,
M. CHIETTIPATTY, OMALUR TALUK,
SELAM DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE-600 095.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJENDRA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2- SERVED UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.09.2021 PASSED IN
MVC NO. 4244/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19464-DB
MFA No. 4730 of 2022
SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (S.C.C.H-1), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, DR. CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.C.Anantharama, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Sri.Rajendra Hegde, learned counsel who is
representing respondent No.1 - Insurance Company.
2. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded as
compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru, through orders in MVC No.4244/2019 dated
01.09.2021, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant.
3. Arguing in respect of merits of the matter learned
counsel Sri.Anantharama C. who is representing the appellant
submits that the appellant sustained grievous injury due to the
accident and she was hospitalized for a period of 60 days.
Learned counsel also states that the appellant took extensive
treatment and underwent several surgeries. Learned counsel
further submits that though through all the evidence produced
the appellant has established that she became permanently
NC: 2024:KHC:19464-DB
disabled and though the Doctor who was examined as PW4
stated that disability towards whole body is 26%, yet the
Tribunal did not award any amount towards loss of amenities
present and future and therefore, the present appeal is
preferred. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement of
compensation.
4. On the other hand Sri.Rajenda Hegde, learned
counsel for respondent No.1 contends that the appellant
sustained only simple injury as noted in the wound certificate
and thus, the amount awarded as compensation is exorbitant.
Learned counsel further contends that PW4 did not treat the
appellant and further there are no fractures at any part of the
body and thus, it cannot be held that the appellant is
permanently disabled.
5. We have gone through the entire material that is
brought on record. As per the material available on record, the
appellant met with an accident on 06.1.2019. She was shifted
to hospital i.e. Basavanagudi Medical Centre, Bengaluru and
she was discharged against the medical advice on 08.01.2019.
Thereafter, she took treatment at District Hospital, Tumakuru
NC: 2024:KHC:19464-DB
from 08.01.2019 till 10.02.2019. Further, she took treatment
as inpatient at Sri.Siddhartha Hospital,
Tumakuru from 07.03.2019 to 01.04.2019. By the contents of
Exs.P7 to P9 it is clear that the appellant sustained degloving
injury on left thigh. It is also clear that the appellant underwent
split skin grafting surgery on 16.03.2019. However, we are not
convinced with the evidence of PW4, who states that the
disability is 26% in respect of whole body. PW4 as clearly
noted by the Tribunal in the impugned order admitted during
the course of cross examination that there is no fracture to the
hip, knee or ankle. The appellant also failed to produce any
substantive proof with regard to her occupation and earnings as
on the date of accident. The Tribunal through the impugned
has awarded compensation under the following heads:
Sl. Head of compensation Amount
No Rs.
1 Pain and sufferings
60,000.00
2 Medical expenses 86,400.00
3 Food and nourishment, attendant
charges 60,000.00
4 Transportation charges
05,000.00
5 Los of amenities
1,00,000.00
Total 3,11,400.00
NC: 2024:KHC:19464-DB
6. Having considered the totality of the evidence
produced, we are of the considered view that the sum awarded
under the head pain and sufferings is required to be increased
by Rs.15,000/-, likewise a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which was
awarded towards loss of amenities is required to be enhanced
to Rs.1,35,000/-. In the same manner, as no amount is
awarded under the head loss of earnings, as it is clearly
brought on record that the appellant took treatment as
inpatient for a considerable period, we are of the view that a
sum of Rs.50,000/- is required to be awarded under the head
loss of earnings from the date of accident till recovery.
Therefore, in all, the appellant is entitled for a enhanced sum
of Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus, in the light of the foregoing discussion
the following order is passed.
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The amount awarded as compensation by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, through
orders in MVC No.4244/2019 dated 01.09.2021 is
enhanced by Rs.1,00,000/-.
NC: 2024:KHC:19464-DB
(iii) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till
the date of deposit.
(iv) Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount within a period of six 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/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
AP
CT:TSM
