Partly allowed

Ramesha v. Premakka

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2022MFA/2327/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation in two motor accident appeals. For the injured claimant (MVC 54/2015), future income compensation was raised to ₹2.60 lakhs and amenities to ₹40,000, totaling ₹4.32 lakhs. For the deceased's claims (MVC 53/2015), loss of dependency was calculated at ₹12.85 lakhs based on 40% future prospects and a 50% family contribution deduction, totaling ₹13.55 lakhs.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced total compensation order to ₹4,32,100 for injured appellant and ₹13,55,200 for death claimants, along with 6% p.a. interest.

Ramesha Vs Premakka — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MFA No.2327 OF 2019(MV) C/W

¶7

MFA No.2341 OF 2019(MV)

¶8

IN MFA 2327/2019 BETWEEN

¶9

RAMESHA

¶10

S/O OBAIAH

¶11

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O BELAGHATTA VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK NOW R/O MAIKAPURA VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK

¶12

...APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. GIREESHA S.N., ADV. FOR SRI. MANJUNATH N D., ADV.)

¶14

AND

¶15

1 . PREMAKKA

¶16

W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O DASAIHNAHATTY VILLAGE HOSADURGA TALUK.

¶17

¶18

2 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD MMK-COMPLEX AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD DAVANAGERE-577001.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.C.S.SHANKAR REDDY, ADV. FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 03.01.2022)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:13.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.54/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, HOLALKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

IN MFA 2341/2019 BETWEEN

¶23

RATHNAMMA W/O MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O KAKKERU VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK NOW R/O MALKAPURA VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK.

¶24

...APPELLANT

¶25

¶26

(BY SRI. GIREESHA S.N., ADV. SRI.MANJUNATH N D.,ADV.)

¶27

AND

¶28

1 . PREMAKKA

¶29

W/O KRISHNAPPA

¶30

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶31

R/O DASAIHNAHATTY VILLAGE HOSADURGA TALUK.

¶32

2 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MMK-COMPLEX, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD DAVANAGERE-577 001.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. C.S.SHANKAR REDDY, ADV. FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 12.10.2022)

¶35

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:13.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.53/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, HOLALKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶36

THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

These appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) have been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 13.3.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Holalkere in MVC 54/2015 and MVC 53/2015 respectively.

¶40

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that on 5.6.2014, when the deceased Thippesha and injured Ramesha were proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA16-U-3211 from Mavinakatte to Belagatta Village wherein deceased was riding the motorcycle and injured was a pillion rider, at that time, a Tractor bearing registration No.KA-16-T-5313 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of the aforesaid

¶41

¶42

accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot and injured Ramesha sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶43

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased and for the injuries sustained by the injured along with interest.

¶44

On service of summons, the respondents appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶45

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶46

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. In MVC 53/2015, the mother of the deceased was examined as PW-1 and in MVC

¶47

54/2015, the claimant-injured has been examined

¶48

¶49

himself as PW-2 and Dr.Ambrish as PW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. On behalf of respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was produced. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal further held that the claimant in MVC 53/2015 is entitled to a compensation of Rs.817,000/and claimant in MVC 54/2015 is entitled to a compensation of Rs.290,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed.

¶50

IN MFA 2327/2019 (MVC 54/2015)-Injury case

¶51

The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions:

¶52

¶53

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.5,500/- per month.

¶54

Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-3. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 53% to particular limb and 12% to whole body. But the Tribunal has taken the whole body disability at 10%, which is on the lower side.

¶55

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 17 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and

¶56

¶57

other incidental expenses are on the lower side.

¶58

Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶59

On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶60

the Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions:

¶61

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, he has not produced any documents to establish his income. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶62

Secondly, the doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 53% to particular limb. The Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 12%.

¶63

Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the

¶64

¶65

Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶66

Heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶67

and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶68

It is not in dispute that the claimant has

¶69

sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred

¶70

due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶71

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He has not produced any documents to prove his income. Therefore, in the absence of proof of income, notional income has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2014, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.8,500/- p.m.

¶72

¶73

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained deformity present, tenderness present over left leg, tenderness present over left thigh, laceration present over left eyebrow region 5x2 cm, tenderness present on chest an back, abrasion present over right foot and tenderness present over right elbow. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 53% to particular limb. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, I am of the opinion that the whole body disability can be taken at 15%. The claimant is aged about 30 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘17’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.260,100/(Rs.8,5001217*15%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶74

¶75

The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 2 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.17,000/- (Rs.8,500*2 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶76

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more than 17 days in the hospital and thereafter, has received further treatment. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer with the disability stated by the doctor throughout his life. Considering the same, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.

¶77

Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶78

¶79

10. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

¶80

following compensation:

¶81

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	60,000	60,000
Medical expenses	35,000	35,000
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	5,000	5,000
Loss of income during	10,000	17,000
laid up period
Loss of amenities	30,000	40,000
Loss of future income	134,640	260,100
Future medical expenses	15,000	15,000
Total	289,640	432,100
Rounded off	290,000	432,100

¶82

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation

¶83

of Rs.432,100/-.

¶84

IN MFA 2341/2019 (MVC 53/2015)-Death case

¶85

The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

¶86

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of the accident

¶87

¶88

and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing agricultural work. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.5,500/-.

¶89

Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income towards ‘future prospects’ should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. But the Tribunal has wrongly added 30% instead of 40%.

¶90

Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL

¶91

INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ

¶92

2782] , the claimant is entitled for compensation of

¶93

¶94

Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶95

Fourthly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.

¶96

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter-contentions:

¶97

Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, the same is not established by the claimants by producing documents. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

¶98

Secondly, since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards ‘future prospects’.

¶99

¶100

Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶101

Heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶102

and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶103

It is not in dispute that deceased Thippesha died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶104

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. But they have not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the

¶105

¶106

accident taken place in the year 2014, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.8,500/p.m.

¶107

To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘PRANAY SETHI’ (supra). Thus, the monthly income would be Rs.11,900/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, it is appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘18’. Thus, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.12,85,200/- (Rs.11,9001218*50%) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶108

¶109

In addition, the claimant is entitled to

¶110

compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’.

¶111

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant, mother of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/each under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’ .

¶112

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

¶113

following compensation:

¶114

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	12,85,200
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of Filial consortium	40,000
Total	13,55,200

¶115

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation

¶116

of Rs.13,55,200/- as against Rs.8,17,000/- awarded

¶117

by the Tribunal.

¶118

¶119

In the result, the appeals are allowed in part . The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶120

The claimant in MVC 54/2015 is entitled to a

¶121

total compensation of Rs.4,32,100/-.

¶122

The claimant in MVC 53/2015 is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.13,55,200/- .

¶123

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount in both these cases along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶124

In view of the order dated 10.3.2022 passed by this Court, the claimant in MVC 54/2015 is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 642 days in filing the appeal.

¶125

In view of the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by this Court, the claimant in MVC 53/2015 is not entitled

¶126

¶127

for interest for the delayed period of 643 days in filing

¶128

the appeal.

¶129

Sd/JUDGE

¶130

Ramesha v. Premakka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesha v. Premakka

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

Smt Geetha Bai Vs Sri M Mujeeb

Manjushree Vs Sri Kantharaju

Mr. Aboobaker Siddik Talapady Vs Dr. Narendra J Shetty

Sri Kenchappa Vs Smt Ashubi

United India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Sri Kenchappa

Rathnamma Vs Premakka