Partly allowed

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri S Ramesh Kumar

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2023MFA/6559/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court modified an award in a motor vehicle accident compensation case. It upheld the legal representatives' right to claim dependence loss, corrected the notional income and future prospects calculation, and reduced the interest rate from 8% to 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation rounded to Rs. 24,54,500/- awarded with interest at 6% per annum from date of petition.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri S Ramesh Kumar — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:42224-DB MFA No. 6559/2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 151/2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6559/2017 (MV-D)

¶10

C/W

¶11

MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 151/ 2017

¶12

IN MFA No.6559/2017

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., LAXMAN TOWERS, NO.60/4, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE-560 010. REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, NO.28, EAST WING, 5^TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD,

¶15

Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

BANGALORE-560 001. … APPELLANT

¶17

(BY SRI D. VIJAYAKUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

SRI S. RAMESH KUMAR, S/O S.SRINIVASAN, R/AT NO.22/B, 4^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN,

¶20

PRAKRUTHI LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR, HBR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 043.

¶21

SINCE DECEASED BY LRs

¶22

1(a) SRI S. SRINIVASAN S/O P.SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶23

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC:42224-DB MFA No. 6559/2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 151/2017

¶25

1(b) SMT.UMA W/O SRINIVASAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶26

BOTH ARE R/AT No.22/B, 4^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, PRAKRUTHI LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR, HBR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 043.

¶27

MR.BIJI JACOB, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, MAJOR, R/AT NO.282, 6^TH MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, VIVEK NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 047. (OWNER OF CAR BEARING REG.NO.KA-01-ME-3345) … RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI K. T. GURUDEVAPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a & b); VIDE ORDER DATED 18.11.2023 APPEAL AGAINST R2 STANDS DISMISSED)

¶29

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.05.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.5834/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, & XX ACMM & MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-24), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.25,89,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶30

IN MFA CROB No.151/2017

¶31

BETWEEN:

¶32

S. RAMESH KUMAR, S/O S. SRINIVASAN, SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES,

¶33

1(a) S.SRINIVASAN, S/O P. SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:42224-DB MFA No. 6559/2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 151/2017

¶36

1(b) SMT. UMA, W/O SRINIVASAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.22/B, 4^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, PRAKRUTHI LAYOUT, KALYANANAGAR, HBR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560043. … CROSS OBJECTORS

¶37

(BY SRI GURUDEVA PRASAD K. T., ADVOCATE)

¶38

AND:

¶39

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., LAXMAN TOWERS, NO.60/4, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE-560010. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER

¶40

BIJI JACOB, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.282, 6^TH MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, VIVEK NAGAR, BANGALORE-560047. … RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DT. 09.02.2021 NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH)

¶42

THIS MFA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC WITH SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.05.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.5834/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 22^ND ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & 20^TH ACMM & MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶43

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL AND MFA CROB COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY , K.S. MUDAGAL J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

J U D G M E N T

¶45

MFA No.6559/2017 is preferred by the insurer challenging

¶46

the award in MVC No.5834/2011. The claimants in the said

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:42224-DB MFA No. 6559/2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 151/2017

¶49

case have preferred the cross objection No.151/2017 questioning the adequacy of the compensation awarded to the claimants in MVC No.5834/2011.

¶50

For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶51

Initially, MVC No.5834/2011 was filed by S. Ramesh Kumar seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicle accident. Pending MVC No.5834/2011, he succumbed to the injuries suffered by him. Therefore, his father and mother came on record as claimant Nos.1a and 1b and prosecuted the matter. At the relevant time, respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal were the insurer and owner of the offending vehicle.

¶52

On 25.06.2011 at 8.45 p.m., when S.Ramesh Kumar was riding motor cycle bearing No.KA-53-S-5801 at Dickenson Road, near Sub Area Officers Colony, Halasur, Car bearing No.KA-01-ME-3345, hit his motor cycle. In the accident, S. Ramesh Kumar suffered grievous injuries resulting in Paraplegia.

¶53

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42224-DB MFA No. 6559/2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 151/2017

¶54

Ramesh Kumar filed MVC No.5834/2011 contending

¶55

that the accident and consequential injuries occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of driver of Car bearing No. KA-01-ME-3345. He further contended that due to grievous injuries suffered by him, he has suffered permanent physical disability. He claimed that he was serving as Business Development Executive in M/s. V. Verve Health Consultants, Bengaluru and earning Rs.15,500/- p.m. by way of salary. He further claims that he suffered 100% permanent physical disability. He claimed compensation of Rs.1,10,00,000/- from respondent Nos.1 and 2. Pending MVC No.5834/2011, Ramesh Kumar died on 05.04.2015.

¶56

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 contested the petition

¶57

denying the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of Car bearing No.KA-01-ME-3345, age, occupation and income of the claimant and the permanent disability suffered by him. They contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the claimant himself and the driver of the car was falsely implicated in the case in collusion with police etc. Respondent No.2 contended that the vehicle is insured with respondent No.1. The liability, if any, shall have to be indemnified by respondent No.1. Respondent

¶58

¶59

NC: 2023:KHC:42224-DB MFA No. 6559/2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 151/2017

¶60

No.1 contended that the claimant was riding the vehicle without

¶61

valid Driving License and it's liability was subject to the conditions of the policy.

¶62

In support of the case of the claimants, PW’s 1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P33 were marked. The original claimant - Ramesh Kumar was examined as PW.1. The Doctor, who treated the claimant during his life time was examined as PW.2. PW.3 was the complainant/eye-witness to the accident. PW.4 was examined as the attendant/care taker of the victim. PW.5 was examined to prove Ex.P11 - Salary Certificates allegedly issued by M/s. V. Verve Health Consultants - the employer. PW.6 is claimant No.1a - father of the deceased. PW.7 is Doctor, who speaks about the death summary and the death report. Respondents did not lead any evidence.

¶63

The Tribunal on hearing both parties, relying on the oral evidence and Exs.P1 to P6 and P32 held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the Car bearing No.KA-01-ME-3345. The Tribunal further held that the death of original claimant was due to the accidental injuries suffered by him, the cause of action survives to claimant Nos.1a and 1b and they are entitled to the

¶64

¶65

NC: 2023:KHC:42224-DB MFA No. 6559/2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 151/2017

¶66

compensation on the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of PW.5 and the case of the claimant that the deceased was employed in M/s. V. Verve Health Consultants as Business Development Executive. Therefore, notionally assessed his income at Rs.8,000/- p.m.

¶67

The Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased at 20 years, added 50% to income of the deceased by way of future prospectus, deducted (1/2) half from the income of the deceased for his personal expenses as he was a bachelor, applied '18' multiplier and awarded compensation at Rs.12,96,000/- on the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal in all awarded compensation of Rs.25,89,029/- on

¶68

different heads as per the table below:

¶69

Sl. No.	Particulars	Compensation Amount in Rs.
1.	Medical Expenses	Rs.10,23,029/-
2.	Food and Nourishment, Attendant and conveyance Charges	Rs.2,00,000/-
3.	Loss of dependency	Rs.12,96,000/-
4.	Loss of Love and affection	Rs.50,000/-
5.	Transportation Charges, Funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses	Rs.20,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs.25,89,029/-

¶70

Both the claimants and insurer challenge the said

¶71

award questioning the adequacy of the compensation awarded.

¶72

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:42224-DB MFA No. 6559/2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 151/2017

¶73

Apart from that Sri. D. Vijayakumar, learned

¶74

counsel for the insurer relying on the judgments of this Court further contends that when the injured died, the cause of action does not survive to his parents. Therefore, they were entitled to compensation only under the head of loss of estate. He further claims that the other compensation awarded is also on the higher side.

¶75

In support of his submissions, he relied on the

¶76

following judgments:

¶77

Kannamma V/s. Deputy General Manager¹

¶78

Uttam Kumar V/s. Madhav and Another²

¶79

Sri. K. T. Gurudevaprasad, learned counsel for the

¶80

claimants submits that the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable as the death was direct consequence of the injuries suffered by the victim in the accident. He further submits that the victim was a diploma student. The Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the evidence of PW.5 and assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- p.m. He further submits that the compensation awarded on other heads is also on the lower side.

¶81

1 ILR 1990 KAR 4300

¶82

2 ILR 2002 KAR 1864

¶83

¶84

NC: 2023:KHC:42224-DB MFA No. 6559/2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 151/2017

¶85

On hearing both side and on examination of the records, the point that arises for consideration of this Court is: "Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the impugned award is just one?"

¶86

ANALYSIS

¶87

The rider of the motor cycle himself deposed before the Court that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Car bearing No.KA-01ME-3345. On the complaint of PW.3 as per Ex.P2, the Police registered FIR as per Ex.P1 and on investigation filed charge sheet Ex.P32 against the driver of the car. The said evidence was not refuted by the respondents by examining the driver of the car. Under the circumstance, the trial Court rightly held that the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the car was proved.

¶88

Whether the death of Ramesh Kumar - the original claimant occurred due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident is the next question. To prove that, the claimant relied on the evidence of PW.2 - the Doctor, who treated him during his lifetime and PW.7, who issued the death summary as per Ex.P26 and death report at Ex.P27. The evidence of

¶89

10 -

¶90

NC: 2023:KHC:42224-DB MFA No. 6559/2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 151/2017

¶91

those witnesses coupled with Ex.P6 - wound certificate, Ex.P7 -

¶92

Discharge summary for the period 26.06.2011 to 03.07.2011, Ex.P8 - another discharge summary for the period 03.07.2011 to 28.08.2011 and the evidence of PWs.2 and 7 show that the

¶93

victim had suffered the following injuries in the accident.

¶94

1. "Abrasion over right maxillary region.

¶95

2. Abrasion over right forearm.

¶96

3. Abrasion over right shoulder.

¶97

4. Abrasions over both knees.

¶98

5. Abrasions over dorsum of both hands.

¶99

6. Post Traumatic D-II vertebra fracture."

¶100

The evidence of PWs.2, 7 and other witnesses

¶101

shows that the victim had suffered paraplegia. The medical evidence further shows that the victim had bladder dysfunction. The medical evidence further shows that due to the injuries the victim was bed ridden all along, therefore, he developed bed sores and septicemia. He died on 05.04.2015 due to septic shock and bed sores. The said evidence was not impeached in the cross-examination of the witnesses. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was a direct nexus between the accidental injuries and the death of S. Ramesh Kumar.

¶102

11 -

¶103

NC: 2023:KHC:42224-DB MFA No. 6559/2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 151/2017

¶104

Then the question is whether on the death of S. Ramesh Kumar after four years due to the accidental injuries, the cause of action survived to his parents or not? In both the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the insurer himself, on reference this Court held that a claim petition presented under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 by the person sustaining bodily injuries in a motor accident, claiming compensation for personal injuries as also for compensation towards expenses, loss of income etc., on such persons death occurring as a result or consequence of bodily injuries sustained in the motor accident can be prosecuted by his/her legal representatives.

¶105

In paragraph No.9 of the judgment of Uttam Kumar’s case referred to supra, Full bench of this Court referring to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act) held that, if any death is resulted from the accident, the legal representatives can be brought on record and can pursue the claim petition under Section 166(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the said judgment applies.

¶106

In the present case it is not disputed that the victim was aged 20 years, who was the son of claimant Nos.1a and

¶107

12 -

¶108

NC: 2023:KHC:42224-DB MFA No. 6559/2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 151/2017

¶109

1b. Therefore, they become his dependants. Thus, we are not convinced by the submission that the claimants are entitled to the compensation only on the head of loss of estate. The Act applicable in the present case is the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 166 of the Act sufficiently protected the interest of claimant Nos.1a and 1b. On the death of the victim, they did not claim compensation for the personal injuries of the victim but they claimed compensation on the head of loss of dependency as the dependants of the deceased. Therefore, the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the insurer does not advance his case.

¶110

As per the medical records, at the time of accident the victim was aged 20 years. When he died, his age was 24 years. Therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation³ , the trial Court was justified in applying 18 multiplier. So far as the income of the deceased, though the claimants contended that he was earning Rs.15,500/- p.m. from his employment in M/s. V. Verve Health Consultants, the author of Ex.P11 was not examined. PW.5 though claimed that he was another employee in the said Institution. PW.5 himself admitted that there was

¶111

3 AIR 2009 SC 3104

¶112

13 -

¶113

NC: 2023:KHC:42224-DB MFA No. 6559/2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 151/2017

¶114

no authorization letter issued by the employer to depose. PW.5's evidence was rightly rejected by the trial Court to hold that Ex.P11 was not a dependable document. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income notionally.

¶115

Though it was contended that deceased was a diploma student, to prove that the authors of Exs.P12 and P13 - the alleged college ID and student certificate were not examined. Even the SSLC marks card of the deceased was not produced. Considering the age of the deceased and the prevailing wage rate during the relevant period, the notional income assessed is on the higher side. The Tribunal should have assessed the same as to Rs.6,500/- p.m.

¶116

As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi⁴ , for a self employed person below 50 years of age, the future prospects to be awarded is at 40%. The Tribunal erred in awarding 50% of future prospects. 40% future prospects comes to Rs.2,600/- p.m (Rs.6,500 X 40% = Rs.2,600/-). Therefore, his total income per month comes to Rs.9,100/-.

¶117

4 AIR 2017 SC 5157

¶118

14 - NC: 2023:KHC:42224-DB MFA No. 6559/2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 151/2017

¶119

As the deceased was bachelor, as per the judgment

¶120

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma’s case referred to supra , 50% of his income has to be deducted for personal and living expenses. Therefore, his contribution to the family comes to Rs.4,550/- p.m. (Rs. 9100X50%). Therefore, the compensation payable on the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,82,800/- (Rs.4,550/- X 12 X 18).

¶121

On the head of food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges the Tribunal has awarded in all Rs.2,00,000/-. The victim survived for about four years. The medical records show that he was fully bed ridden and dependent on others. The oral evidence and Exs.P6 to P8, P21, P22 and other records show that victim had to be taken to the hospital frequently and he was on physiotherapy etc. In the similar circumstance of paraplegia, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MASTER AYUSH V/s. BRANCH MANAGER,

¶122

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND

¶123

ANOTHER⁵ awarded attendant charges at Rs.3,700/- p.m. Therefore, the compensation payable on the head of attendant charges come to Rs.1,77,600/- (Rs.3,700/- X 12 X 4).

¶124

5 (2022)7 SCC 738

¶125

15 -

¶126

NC: 2023:KHC:42224-DB MFA No. 6559/2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 151/2017

¶127

Considering the fact that the victim was bed ridden for four years, the Tribunal should have awarded at least Rs.1,00,000/on the head of Food and Nourishment separately.

¶128

As per Ex.P22 - 7 ambulance bills, the expenses of shifting to the hospital was Rs.17,485/-. Apart from Ex.P22, victim had to be taken to the hospital therefore, awarding Rs.50,000/- on the head of conveyance charges meets ends of justice.

¶129

The medical expenses of Rs.10,23,029/- was awarded based on the records therefore, that does not warrant any interference.

¶130

Claimants 1a and 1b being the parents, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case referred to supra , are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/each with escalation at 10% on the head of loss of filial consortium. On the conventional heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

¶131

Court in Pranay Sethi’s case referred to supra, claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- on each head with escalation of 10%,

¶132

16 -

¶133

NC: 2023:KHC:42224-DB MFA No. 6559/2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 151/2017

¶134

which comes to Rs.33,000/-. Therefore, the just compensation

¶135

payable is as follows:

¶136

Sl. No.	Particulars	Compensation awarded in Rs.
1.	Loss of dependency	Rs. 9,82,800/-
2.	Medical expenses	Rs.10,23,029/-
3.	Attendant Charges	Rs. 1,77,600/-
4.	Food and Nourishment	Rs. 1,00,000/-
5.	Conveyance charges	Rs. 50,000/-
6.	Consortium	Rs. 88,000/-
7.	Loss of estate and funeral expenses	Rs. 33,000/-
	Total Rounded off to	Rs.24,54,429/- Rs.24,54,500/-

¶137

The Tribunal without assigning any reasons has awarded interest at 8% per annum. As per Section 150 of M.V. Act, the interest payable on the award amount is as per the laws applicable relating to interest. The applicable law is Interest Act, 1978 and Section 34 of CPC. Under the Interest Act, interest is payable at contractual rate. In this case, there is no such contract. Therefore, Section 34 of CPC applies. According to the said provision, interest payable is 6% per annum. Therefore, impugned award requires to be modified accordingly. Hence, the following;

¶138

17 -

¶139

NC: 2023:KHC:42224-DB MFA No. 6559/2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 151/2017

¶140

O R D E R

¶141

i) The appeal and cross-objection are partly allowed.

¶142

ii) The impugned award is modified as follows:

¶143

a) The claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.24,54,500/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till date of realization.

¶144

b) Respondent No.1-Insurer shall deposit the said amount before Tribunal on adjusting the amount already deposited, if any, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶145

c) The order of Tribunal with regard to apportionment is maintained.

¶146

d) Registry to return TCRs and transmit the amount in deposit, if any, to Tribunal.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

VBS,MV

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri S Ramesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri S Ramesh Kumar

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 Nandini S N Vs Dr S v Prashanth

P N Madhava Kumar Vs R Ramesha

Smt S Mamatha Vs Sri N Ningegowda @ Raju

The Managing Director Vs Smt Saraswathi K

Sri Subbanna Vs v Dinesh Kumar

Smt Veena S G Vs Sri Shivakumar