Partly allowed

Smt. Renuka v. Sri H N Ramesh

Karnataka HC24 Jan 2022MFA/9116/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident case. While terminating the vendor-side negligence challenge as waived, the Court accepted the insurer's view on income and prospects. It recalculated loss of dependency and added conventional heads, granting Rs. 10,38,200 comprising Rs. 6,18,200 enhancement.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; total compensation enhanced to Rs. 10,38,200/- to be paid within eight weeks.

Smt. Renuka Vs Sri H N Ramesh — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶7

M.F.A.No.9116/2013 (MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.RENUKA W/O RAJUBHANDARI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶10

SRI.RAJU BHANDARI S/O LAE MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶11

ALL ARE RESIDING AT ABHIRAM NAGAR HARIHARAPURA KOPPA TALUK

¶12

CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 120 ...APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SHRI.K.S.GANESHA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI.H.N.RAMESH S/O LAE NARASIMHA SHEREGAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O: JAYANAGARA HARIHARAPURA KOPPA TALUK CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577120

¶16

SRI.K.R.GIRISH S/O RAMAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O: KALMAKKI NILUVAGILU VILLAGE

¶17

¶18

KOPPA TALUK CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577126

¶19

THE MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE AT LAKSHMI SHOPPING COMPLEX SUBHASH ROAD, KOPPA CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577126

¶20

SRI.H.M.PRASHANTH S/O MANJU BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O HARIHARAPURA AT POST CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577120

¶21

SRI.ANIL S/O RAJUBHANDARI AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT ABHIRAM NAGAR HARIHARAPURA KOPPA TALUK CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 120 ...RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SHRI.S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV FOR R-3; NOTICE TO R.1,2 & 5-DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 11.09.2014; NOTICE TO R.4-DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 16.11.2018)

¶23

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 26.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.500/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MMACT, CHIKMAGALUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Though this appeal is listed for admission, by consent of learned advocates on both sides, the same is taken up for final disposal.

¶28

This appeal is by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation is filed challenging the judgment and award dated March 26, 2013, in MVC.No.500/2011 passed by the Principal District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chikmagalur.

¶29

Heard Shri K.S.Ganesh, learned Advocate for the appellants-claimants and Shri S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, learned Advocate for third respondent-insurer.

¶30

Claimants are parents of Shri Sunil, who died in the road traffic accident, on 09.05.2011, when a Maruthi Omni Van bearing Reg.No.KA-18-M-9563 coming from opposite direction dashed against the Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-20-V-2350, on which deceased was a pillion rider. Shri Sunil succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital. On adjudication of the claim petition, Tribunal has awarded compensation of

¶31

¶32

Rs.4,20,000/- and held the rider of the motorcycle as negligent to the extent of 50%.

¶33

Shri Ganesh for the claimants urged the following contentions;

¶34

(i) that the Tribunal had erred in considering average age of the parents while computing loss of dependency, whereas age of the deceased ought to have been taken into consideration;

¶35

(ii) that deceased was working as a barber and earning more than Rs.10,000/- per month and Tribunal has erred in considering the earning capacity of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month; and

¶36

(iii) that Tribunal has not granted future prospects and the same could have been granted as per principles laid down in M/s.National Insurance Co., Ltd.,

¶37

Vs Pranay Sethi and Others¹ .

¶38

1 (2017)16 SCC 680

¶39

¶40

Shri Hegde Mulkhand for the insurer, in his usual fairness, did not dispute considering notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/- and the age of the deceased while calculating loss of dependency and he did not dispute the position of law awarding of 40% future prospects.

¶41

So far as contributory negligence on the part of the motorcyclist is concerned, Shri Ganesh for appellants submitted that appellants have not challenged the same. Further, the rider of the motorcycle is a family relative.

¶42

We have carefully considered the submissions of learned advocates on both sides and perused the records.

¶43

Claimants have not produced any document before the Tribunal to substantiate their claim that Shri Sunil was earning more than Rs.10,000/- per month. In the absence of any proof of income, this Court has consistently considered the notional

¶44

¶45

income of an able bodied person in the year 2011 as Rs.6,500/- p.m.

¶46

Deceased was aged 26 years, hence the applicable multiplier is 17 and future prospects is to be added at 40%. Since deceased was a bachelor, 50% is deductible from his earnings while calculating loss of dependency. Claimants are parents of the deceased and they are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium.

¶47

Thus, compensation towards loss of dependency is worked out as follows;

¶48

The monthly notional income works out to Rs.9,100/- (Rs.6,500+2,600). [by adding 40% towards future prospects (Rs.6,50040%=Rs.2,600)]. After deducting 50% towards personal expenses, monthly income works out to Rs.4,550/(Rs.9,10050%) and annual notional income works out to Rs.54,600/- (Rs.4,55012). By applying 17 as multiplier, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.9,28,200/- (Rs.54,60017).

¶49

¶50

12. The total compensation is re-computed as follows;

¶51

Sl. No	Description	Amount
a.	Loss of dependency	Rs.9,28,200
b.	ADD : Conventional Heads	Rs.30,000
c.	ADD : Filial Consortium (Rs.40,000*2)	Rs.80,000
d.	Total (a+b+c)	Rs.10,38,200
e.	LESS :Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.4,20,000
Enha	nced compensation (d-e)	Rs.6,18,200

¶52

Hence, the following;

¶53

ORDER

¶54

(i) Appeal is allowed in part by holding that claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.10,38,200/-, as against Rs.4,20,000/awarded by the Tribunal, payable with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of filing claim petition till the date of deposit. The enhanced compensation is Rs.6,18,200 /-; and

¶55

(ii) Third respondent-insurer shall pay the

¶56

entire compensation amount of Rs.10,38,200/-

¶57

¶58

with interest at 6% p.a., excluding the amount paid, if any, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Disbursement shall be made as directed by the Tribunal.

No costs.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SBN/AV

Smt. Renuka v. Sri H N Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Renuka v. Sri H N Ramesh

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

State Bank of Mysore Vs Smt Suma Maheshchandra

Smt Amba Alva Vs Basf India Limited

The Union of India Vs D R Shivakumar

Renukaiah Vs R Jayakumar

Sri.Pradeep K.N. Vs Sri.H.K.Vijayakumar

Smt Shwetha Vs Syed Farooq