Partly allowed

Sri K S Ramesh v. the Branch Manager

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2024MFA/2882/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant sought enhancement of motor accident compensation for right leg amputation sustained in a 2017 accident. The court raised whole-body disability from 30% to 75% given his agricultural occupation, adopted notional income of Rs.11,000 per KSLSA norms, accepted age 33 per Aadhaar card with multiplier 16, and enhanced total compensation to Rs.26,02,793 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.26,02,793 with interest at 6% p.a.; insurer to deposit within two months.

Sri K S Ramesh Vs the Branch Manager — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:42565 MFA No. 2882 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2882 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI K S RAMESH S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A HAMPANUR VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TQ AND DIST

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI/SMT VIJAY M.N., FOR SRI. SHIVAREDDY A S., AND SMT. P.V.KALPANA., ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD, P J EXTENSION DAVANAGERE.

¶13

AJAY UADAV S/O RAM LAKHAN YADAV, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, MANAGER, DNX CARGO INDIA LTD, O/A BANDAPURA ROAD, OPP-SYMPHONI APART, BANDAPURA VILLAGE.

¶14

BASAVARAJAPPA S/O BASAPPA, MAJOR, SOKKE VILLAGE, HAMPANUR POST, BHARAMASAGARA HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TQ AND DISTRICT.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:42565 MFA No. 2882 of 2020

¶17

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE , 289/12, 2ND FLOOR, A M ARCADE, C.G HOSPITAL ROAD, DAVANAGERE

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. ASHOK.N.PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R-4; VIDE ORDER DATED 16.11.2023, NOTICE TO R-2 AND R-3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC No.82/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-IV, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Being dissatisfied with the award of compensation of Rs.6,88,193/-, the claimant is in appeal seeking enhancement.

¶25

The occurrence of the accident and the liability to pay compensation by the Insurer are not in dispute.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:42565 MFA No. 2882 of 2020

¶28

It is also not in dispute that the claimant has

¶29

suffered amputation below his right knee.

¶30

The Tribunal has determined the whole body disability at 30%. Since the claimant was an agriculturist, the assessment of disability at 30% by the Tribunal would be incorrect. If an agriculturist loses the use of one leg, he would virtually be made redundant to carry out any agricultural activities. In my view, it would therefore be appropriate to determine the disability at 75% as against 30%.

¶31

The Tribunal has determined the notional income of the claimant as Rs.6,000/-, since there was no evidence to that effect. In such circumstances, since the accident is of the year 2017, it would be appropriate to adopt the notional income determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the accident of the year 2017, which would be Rs.11,000/-.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:42565 MFA No. 2882 of 2020

¶34

The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the evidence on record indicated that the claimant was aged 44 years. However, learned counsel for the claimant contends that the Aadhar card was produced before the Tribunal, but it was not marked and as per the Aadhar Card, the year of birth of the claimant is 1984 and thus, he would be aged 33 years as on the date of the accident. In my view, since the Aadhar card is issued after verifying certain documents, it would be proper to accept the age of 33 years indicated in the Aadhar card. Consequently, the multiplier to be adopted would be “16”.

¶35

Since the claimant has suffered disability at 75% and now his age is determined as 33 years, future prospects at 40% requires to be added to said income, which makes his income to be Rs.15,400/- (Rs.11,000/- + Rs.4,400/-).

¶36

Thus, the claimant would be entitled for Rs.22,17,600/- (Rs.15,400/- X 12 X 16 X 75%) towards loss of future earnings.

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42565 MFA No. 2882 of 2020

¶38

9. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/-

¶39

towards pain and sufferings, which, in my view, requires to be enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/- since the claimant has suffered 75% disability.

¶40

The amounts awarded towards medical expenses in a sum of Rs.45,193/-, towards food, nourishment and miscellaneous expenses in a sum of Rs.40,000/- and towards loss of amenities in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, being just and proper, are affirmed.

¶41

11. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified

¶42

and the following sums are awarded as compensation:

¶43

Sl. No.	Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
1.	Pain and sufferings	75,000	1,50,000/-
2.	Loss of future earnings	3,78,000	22,17,600

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:42565 MFA No. 2882 of 2020

¶46

3.	Medical expenses	45,193	45,193
4.	Conveyance, nourishment and miscellaneous expenses	40,000	40,000
5.	Loss of amenities in life	1,50,000	1,50,000
	Total	6,88,193	26,02,793

¶47

Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled for compensation of Rs.26,02,793/- as against Rs.6,88,193/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation. However, the claimant would not be entitled for interest for the delayed period as per order dated 16.11.2023.

¶48

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶49

The other aspects of the award of the Tribunal remain undisturbed.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:42565 MFA No. 2882 of 2020

¶52

The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.

¶53

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶54

PKS

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Sri K S Ramesh v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K S Ramesh v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chaitra B Vs Venkatesha Bhovi

Smt Nagamma Vs the Branch Manager

Sri Rangaswamy Vs M/S Bharathi Axa Genl Ins Co.Ltd.

Smt. Y H Chaithra Vs Sri Rajeev H. Raj@ Bharath

Abdul Khuddus Vs Divisional Controller Ksrtc

Dhanyakumar Vs Chiranjeevi K