Partly allowed

Ramesh v. K B Devaraj

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2022MFA/5808/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against an award of compensation in a motor vehicle accident case. The court enhanced the loss of dependency and loss of consortium amounts based on Supreme Court precedents, increasing the total compensation from approximately Rs. 9.73 lakhs to Rs. 17.84 lakhs.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced total compensation of Rs. 17,84,200/- with interest at 6% per annum.

Ramesh Vs K B Devaraj — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶5

M.F.A.NO.5808/2018 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

1 . RAMESH S/O. KARIYAPPA, COOLIE,

¶8

2 . SMT. PARAMMA W/O. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS HOUSE HOLD WORK,

¶9

BOTH R/AT KADAVAGERE VILLAGE, SRIRAMPURA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 527

¶10

...APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI.GOPALAKRISHNA MURTHY C., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . K B DEVARAJ S/O. BHUTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT VENGALAPURA-KADAVAGERE, SRIRAMPURA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK,

¶14

¶15

CHITRADURGA DISTRICDT 577 527, (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO. KA-48-T-7819 TACTOR)

¶16

2 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MMK COMPLE, 2ND FLOOR, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD, PJ EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE DIST 577 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.GOPALAKRISHNA MURTHY C., ADVOCATE FOR R2 (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE), R1-SERVED)

¶19

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED12.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.566/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, MACT, HOSADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The present appeal is filed by the

¶23

appellants/claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 12.04.2018 in MVC.No.566/2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Hosadurga, for seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶24

¶25

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶26

On 07.05.2017 deceased Ravikumar was

¶27

returning from Kadavigere to his village after finishing work on the left side of road as a pedestrian, near Kanivabhovi’s house in Vengalapura Village on Kadavigere-Srirampura road, tractor bearing No.KA48-T-7819 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased Ravikumar from his back side. Due to which, he sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶28

The claimants being the parents of the deceased-Ravikumar filed a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act., claiming compensation before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.9,73,200/with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

¶29

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶31

appellants/claimants submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lesser side. Hence, prays to allow the appeal.

¶32

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-

¶33

Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation, which needs no interference. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶34

Heard arguments from both the side and

¶35

perused the records.

¶36

The Tribunal has awarded the

¶37

compensation under various heads as follows:

¶38

1	Loss of dependency	Rs.9,07,200/-
2	Conveyance and funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-
3	Loss of love and affection	Rs. 25,000/-
4	Loss of estate	Rs. 15,000/-
5	Hospital charges and medical bills	Rs. 11,000/-
	Total	Rs.9,73,200/-

¶39

¶40

The Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on the lesser side. The deceased was working as an agriculturist and was also doing motor rewinding work. The deceased was a bachelor. Hence, it is just and proper to take income at Rs.11,000/- per month as per the Notional Income Chart recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority. Since, the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. The deceased was aged 22 years as on the date of the accident, hence, 40% of future prospects has to be added to the income of the deceased as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . As the deceased was aged 22 years as on the date of the accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 18. Accordingly, the compensation under the head loss of dependency is re-assessed and quantified as follows:

¶41

¶42

Rs.11,000/- + Rs.4,400/- (40% of Rs.11,000/-)=Rs.15,400/Rs.15,400/- x 50% x 18 x 12=Rs.16,63,200/-

¶43

Accordingly, Rs.16,63,200/- is awarded under

¶44

the head loss of dependency.

¶45

The compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head conveyance charges and funeral expenses is found to be correct, which needs no interference. Hence, it is kept in tact.

¶46

The compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of estate is found to be correct, which needs no interference. Hence, it is kept in tact.

¶47

The compensation of Rs.11,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head hospital charges and medical bills is found to be correct, which needs no interference. Hence, it is kept in tact.

¶48

¶49

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the head loss of love and affection. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Nanu Ram & Others reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, the claimants being the parents of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head loss of consortium including loss of love and affection. Accordingly, Rs.80,000/- is awarded under the head loss of consortium including loss of love and affection.

¶50

Thus, in all, the appellants/claimants are

¶51

entitled to the compensation as follows:

¶52

1	Loss of dependency	Rs.16,63,200/-
2	Conveyance and funeral expenses	Rs.15,000/-	Kept in tact
3	Loss of consortium including loss of love and affection	Rs.80,000/-
4	Loss of estate	Rs.15,000/-	Kept in tact
5	Hospital charges and medical bills	Rs.11,000/-	Kept in tact
	Total	Rs.17,84,200/-

¶53

¶54

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.9,73,200/-, but the appellants/claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.17,84,200/- . Hence, the appellants/claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.8,11,000/- (Rs.17,84,200/- - Rs.9,73,200/-). Therefore, the appellants/claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.8,11,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶55

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the

¶56

following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

Appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶59

The impugned judgment and award dated 12.04.2018 in MVC.No.566/2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Hosadurga, is modified to the

¶60

¶61

extent that the appellants/claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.8,11,000/- along with the rate of interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶62

Draw award accordingly.

¶63

No order as to costs.

¶64

Since, in the present case, the insurer of the offending Tractor No.KA-48-T-7819 is the United India Insurance Company Limited, Davanagere, as shown in the award, but in the cause title of the judgment of Tribunal, it is wrongly shown as New India Insurance Company Limited, Davanagere. Therefore, the insurer stated in the award shall satisfy the claim amount to the claimants.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

Ramesh v. K B Devaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh v. K B Devaraj

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 Divisional Controller Vs Puneeth Kumari. B. R.

Munuf @ Abdul Munaf Vs Mercedes Benz India Ltd.

Smt Shaila Vargis Vs Sri Thomas a M

Master Hemanth Kumar Vs Abdul Shaffin.K.

Baby Khushi S Vs Mr.Chetan Raj N

Divisional Manager Vs Smt. Geetha