Karnataka High Court
Smt Aadilakshmi vs Sri. Manjunatha on 4 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44229
MFA No. 2091 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 2094 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2091 OF 2023(MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2094 OF 2023(MV-I)
IN MFA No. 2091 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
SMT. AADILAKSHMI,
W/O. GANGADHARA Y.R.,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT VANGAYARALAPALLI,
BILLUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR,
DISTRICT-563124.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAGADEESH H.T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MANJUNATHA,
Digitally signed by S/O RAMESH B.K.
AASEEFA PARVEEN MAJOR, NEAR AYYAPPA
Location: HIGH NO.49/7, TEMPLE ROAD,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA PALANAHALLI, YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE-560064.
2. THE MANAGER
MAGMA HDI GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OFFICE AT NO.40, II LANE,
CKC GARDEN, 4TH FLOOR,
MISSION ROAD, NEAR LALBAGH,
BANGALORE-27.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44229
MFA No. 2091 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 2094 of 2023
SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O. DATED 08.08.2023,
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.02.2023 PASSED IN
MVC NO.2809/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ACMM AND XXIII
ASCJ, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 2094 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
SRI. SUDHAKARA REDDY,
S/O. GANGADHARA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT VANGAYARALAPALLI, BILLUR,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563124
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAGADEESH H. T.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MANJUNATHA,
S/O. RAMESH B. K.,
MAJOR, NO.49/7, NEAR AYYAPPA,
TEMPLE ROAD, PALANAHALLI,
YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064.
2. THE MANAGER,
MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OFFICE AT NO.40, II LANE,
CKC GARDEN, 4TH FLOOR, MISSION ROAD,
NEAR LALBAGH, BANGALORE-27.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O. DATED 29.08.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:44229
MFA No. 2091 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 2094 of 2023
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.02.2023 PASSED IN
MVC NO.2808/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI AMM AND XXIII
ASCJ, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
These two appeals arise out of the common order that is
rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in
MVC No.2808/2021 and MVC No.2809/2021.
2. The appellants in both the appeals sustained
injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 09.05.2021.
While the appellants in both the appeals were proceeding on a
motorcycle, they met with a road traffic accident when their
vehicle was hit by a Tata Ace vehicle.
3. The Tribunal through the impugned common order
awarded a sum of Rs.3,24,200/- to the appellant in MFA
No.2094/2023 and Rs.2,46,000/- to the appellant in MFA
No.2091/2023. Dissatisfied with the same, these appeals are
filed.
NC: 2024:KHC:44229
4. Heard Sri.Jagdeesh.H.T. learned counsel for the
appellants in both the appeals and Sri.Mallikarjuna Reddy.N.A
who represents Sri.Pradeep.B learned counsel on record for
respondent No.2 in both the appeals.
Findings of the Court in MFA No.2094/2023 which is
connected to MVC No.2808/2021:
5. It is not in dispute that the appellant in this appeal
sustained closed fracture of left tibia and crush injury of left
thumb. Though PW3 assessed the disability in respect of left
lower limb as 42% and whole body as 14%, the Tribunal took
the disability in respect of whole body as 9%. The finding thus
given is justifiable.
6. Sri.Jagadeesh.H.T. representing the appellant
submits that the appellant took extensive treatment for the
injuries sustained and the appellant was in hospital for a period
of nine days. The appellant as an agriculturist was earning
Rs.20,000/- per month. However, without considering the
nature of injuries sustained, the Tribunal awarded meager sum
as compensation and therefore, the present appeal is filed.
NC: 2024:KHC:44229
Learned counsel ultimately seeks for enhancement of
compensation.
7. The submission that is made by Sri.Mallikarjuna
Reddy.N.A. representing the insurance company is that the
amount awarded as compensation under all heads is justifiable.
8. Admittedly, the appellant did not produce any
substantive proof with regard to his occupation and earnings as
on the date of the accident. The Tribunal took the notional
income as Rs.15,000/- per month. Having considered the
nature of injuries sustained, this Court is of the view that the
appellant would have taken bed rest atleast for a period of
three months. Thus, awarding a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the
head loss of income during laid up period is unjustifiable as
rightly projected by learned counsel for the appellant
Sri.Jagdeesh.H.T.
9. Having considered the nature of injuries sustained,
the disability which the appellant is left with and the amount
awarded as compensation under all heads by the Tribunal, this
Court is of the view that globally, a sum of Rs.75,000/- is
required to be enhanced so that the amount which the
NC: 2024:KHC:44229
appellant would get as compensation will be justifiable. Thus,
this Court holds that the appellant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.75,000/- in addition to the sum that is awarded by the
Tribunal as compensation.
Findings in MFA N0.2091/2023 which is connected to
MVC No.2809/2021:
10. The appellant in this appeal as per the material
available on record sustained bimalleolar fracture of right ankle,
a lacerated wound over left knee with left knee subluxation and
fracture of right superior pubic ramus which are grievous in
nature. Apart from those injuries, the appellant also sustained
three other simple injuries. Even in this case, though it is
projected that the appellant as an agriculturist was earning
Rs.20,000/- per month, no proof was produced to that effect.
The Tribunal considering the totality of evidence produced,
awarded a sum of Rs.3,27,975/- as compensation. The Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- only under the head pain and
suffering. Here is a case where the appellant sustained three
grievous and three simple injuries. Thus, granting a sum of
Rs.45,000/- only under the head pain and suffering is
NC: 2024:KHC:44229
unjustifiable. Also the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-
only towards loss of income during laid up period.
11. Having considered the nature of injuries sustained,
this Court is of the view that the appellant would have taken
bed rest atleast for a period of five months. Thus, considering
all these aspects, this Court holds that appellant is entitled to a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to the sum that is awarded by
the Tribunal. Thus, both the appeals are disposed of with the
following:
ORDER
(i) Both the appeals are allowed in part.
(ii) The compensation that is awarded by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru through
orders in MVC No.2808/2021 dated 10.02.2023 is
enhanced by Rs.75,000/-.
(iii) The compensation that is awarded by Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru through
orders in MVC No.2809/2021 dated 10.02.2023 is
enhanced by Rs.1,00,000/-.
(iv) 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:44229
(v) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the
enhanced sum in both the appeals within a period
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
this order.
(vi) On such deposit, the appellants in both the appeals
are permitted to withdraw the deposited amount.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
DS
