Partly allowed

Ramakrishna v. Suryanarayana Reddy

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2021MFA/5244/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge enhanced motor vehicle accident compensation. Court modified the Tribunal's verdict by increasing functional disability to 50%, applying future prospects addition, and raising pain and suffering award based on amputation, granting total compensation of Rs.11.76 lacs.

What did the court decide?

Modified judgment; total compensation enhanced to Rs.11,76,000/- payable with 6% per annum interest.

Ramakrishna Vs Suryanarayana Reddy — Karnataka HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

M.F.A. NO.5244 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

RAMAKRISHNA S/O P. CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS PRESIDENT OF 5-266-B

¶11

NEW HARIJANA WADA, MADAKASHIRA ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT ANDHRAPRADESH-515 301.

¶12

... APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI R. SHASHIDHARA ADV.,)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SURYANARAYANA REDDY YANAMALA S/O VENKATA REDDY MAJOR, R/O NO. 143, POLEPALLI RAMAGIRI, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT ANANTHAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH 515 001

¶16

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., (R.O.) MISSION ROAD BANGALORE-560 027

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI G.S. MARULAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2

¶19

NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 26.08.2018)

¶20

¶21

¶22

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.7508/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XX ACMM., & MEMBER, MACT (SCCH24) BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, against the judgment and award dated 26.10.2017 passed by the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge and XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bengaluru in MVC No.7508/2016.

¶26

Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that on 21.09.2015 at about 5.30 p.m., the lorry bearing registration No.AP-21-TW-4722 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the back of Trailer, due to the impact the front portion of the lorry got fully damaged and the claimant sustained crush injury. He was immediately

¶27

¶28

shifted to Government Hospital, Ichapuram and after first aid, he was shifted to St.John's Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru for further treatment and left leg below knee level was amputated.

¶29

The claimant thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act inter alia on the ground that because of the accidental injury his left leg below knee level was amputated. It is also pleaded that claimant spent Rs.2,50,000/- towards the operation and other incidental expenses. It was pleaded that because of the permanent disability the claimant is not in a position to carry out his day to day activities and his aged parents, brothers and sisters are all totally depending in his earnings. It was also pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. Hence, he sought for awarding compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.

¶30

The Insurer filed written statement contending

¶31

that the lorry in question is falsely implicated in the accidentk by the claimant in collusion with insured, Police, Doctors and driver of the said lorry. The age, occupation, income and

¶32

¶33

injuries sustained by the claimant was denied. It was also pleaded that liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It was also pleaded that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. It was also stated that the compensation claimed by the claimant is highly excessive, speculative and exorbitant.

¶34

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW-1, Dr. Arjun S. Prakash (PW2) and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. The respondents neither examined any witness nor got exhibited any document. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.9,06,200/- along with interest at the rate

¶35

¶36

of 8% p.a. The insured and insurer were jointly and severally

¶37

held liable to pay the compensation. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶38

6. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that

¶39

the claimant has undergone amputation of left leg below knee due to the accidental injuries sustained by him and as such the functional permanent disability ought to have been assessed at 50% as per Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation Act as against 20% assessed by the Tribunal. Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the claimant as Rs.8,000/- per month and in any case, the same ought to have been taken as per the guidelines framed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not making an addition to the tune of 25% to the income of the claimant on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by

¶40

the Supreme Court in PAPPU DEO YADAV V. NARESH KUMAR AIR 2020 SC 4424 . He further submits that the

¶41

¶42

compensation awarded under other conventional heads is on

¶43

the lower side and the same requires to be enhanced.

¶44

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

¶45

insurance company submitted that no evidence has been adduced by the claimants to prove the income of the claimant before the Tribunal and that the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.8,000/per month. It is further submitted that the functional disability of the claimant assessed by the Tribunal at 20% is just and proper and the claimant is not entitled for compensation towards loss of future prospects. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all the heads is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶46

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation. Admittedly, the claimant has not produced any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. Therefore, the notional income of the claimant is to be assessed as per the

¶47

¶48

guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. Since the accident is of the year 2015, notional income comes to Rs.9,000/- per month. PW.2-Dr. Arjun Prakash has stated in his evidence that the left leg below knee of the claimant was amputated due to the accidental injuries and has suffered disability at 70% to the left limb and total disability at 23.33%. However, the Tribunal assessed the funtional disability at 20% though the left leg below the knee of the claimant has been amputated. Hence, it would be appropriate to assessee the functional disability of the claimant at 50% in view of Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

¶49

The injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident have definitely affected his functional capacity, therefore, 25% of income is to be added to the income of the claimant on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in PAPPU DEO YADAV V.

¶50

NARESH KUMAR AIR 2020 SC 4424. Thus, the income of the claimant comes to Rs.9,000/- per month. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 9,72,000/- (Rs.9,000 x 12x 18x

¶51

¶52

50%) under the head 'loss of earning capacity'. The claimant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.54,000/- towards loss of income during laid-up period i.e., 6 months.

¶53

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head "pain and sufferings". Having regard to the fact that the left leg below knee of the claimant is amputated it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in lieu of pain, suffering and trauma in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prathima Chowdhury Vs. Kaplana Mukherjee and another reported in (2014) 4 SCC 196

¶54

The amount of compensation awarded under the other heads is maintained. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.11,76,000/-. Needless to state that the aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization of the amount. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the claims Tribunal is modified.

¶55

¶56

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

Ramakrishna v. Suryanarayana Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishna v. Suryanarayana Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Mysore City Corporation Vs Smt Leela

The Regional Manager Vs Smt Chaitra

Smt Chandrakala Vs M Manju @ Manjunatha

Nitesh v Vs Karthik Dhotre

Sheela Vs Divisional Controller

Smt K Laxmi Vs the Assistant Commissioner