Partly allowed

Smt. Eramma v. Mr. Haseena

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2024MFA/4482/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the appellants appeal in part, holding that the Tribunal erred in deducting one-third of earnings and using an incorrect income figure. The court recalculated loss of future earnings and loss during the laid-up period, enhancing the total compensation by Rs. 78,600 with interest.

What did the court decide?

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs. 78,600 carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition.

Smt. Eramma Vs Mr. Haseena — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38950 MFA No. 4482 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4482 OF 2021(MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. ERAMMA, W/O. SIDDARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/O. UDUGERE VILLAGE KADUR TLAUK, CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. SATHISHA T.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

MR. HASEENA, S/O. SHARIF JAN, MAJOR, 3^RD DIVISION 11 AKRE PRADWSHA, KADUR TOWN, CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 548.

¶13

REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSUTANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE 5^TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAAN NEAR HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O. DATED 28.06.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38950 MFA No. 4482 of 2021

¶17

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.03.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.6835/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL SCJ AND ACMM AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-26, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

Heard Sri.Sathisha .T learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.Ravish Benni learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶22

Dissatisfied with the amount that is awarded as compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru through orders in MVC No.6835/2018 dated 06.03.2021, the injured is before this court by way of appeal.

¶23

As against the claim for Rs.20,00,000/-, the Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- as compensation.

¶24

Arguing the matter, Sri.Sathisha.T contends that the appellant by doing Coolie work was earning Rs.10,000/- per

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38950 MFA No. 4482 of 2021

¶26

month, however, the Tribunal without giving any reason took the notional income as Rs.9,000/- per month which is improper. Learned counsel contends that the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income as Rs.12,500/- per month for the relevant period. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal for the reasons best known deducted 1/3^rd of the earnings which is erroneous. Learned counsel also states that though PW2 stated that the disability in respect of whole body is 12%, the Tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 10% which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement of compensation.

¶27

Sri.Ravish Benni learned counsel for respondent No.2 graciously admitted that deduction of 1/3^rd is improper. However, learned counsel contends that as the appellant herself projected that her earnings was Rs.10,000/- per month, the income should be restricted to the said amount. Learned counsel further submits that the disability as assessed by the Tribunal is proper.

¶28

Undisputedly, the appellant sustained fracture of claviclar bone of the right shoulder which is grievous in nature.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38950 MFA No. 4482 of 2021

¶30

Also it is brought on record that the appellant underwent surgery for the said injury. However, the assessment of the Tribunal regarding disability in respect of whole body to be 10% is proper.

¶31

As rightly contended by Sri.Sathisha.T, without any basis, the Tribunal deducted 1/3^rd of the earnings. Such deduction is unwarranted. Thus taking the income of the appellant as Rs.10,000/- per month, the disability in respect of whole body as 10% and apply the appropriate multiplier '9', compensation that can be awarded under the head loss of future earnings will be as under:

¶32

Description	Amount In Rs.
Notional monthly income	10,000-00
Annual Income (10,000X12)	1,20,000-00
Apply appropriate multiplier'9'	10,80,000-00
Loss of future earnings, permanent physical disability being 10%	1,08,000-00

¶33

The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded

¶34

a sum of Rs.32,400/- towards loss of future earnings. However, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- towards loss

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38950 MFA No. 4482 of 2021

¶36

of future earnings. Thus, the enhancement will be Rs.75,600/(Rs.1,08,000/- - Rs.32,400/-).

¶37

Having taken the notional income as Rs.9,000/-, exhibiting a view that the appellant would have taken bed rest atleast for a period of three months, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.27,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. However, as income of the appellant is taken as Rs.10,000/- per month, the loss of earnings during laid up period will be Rs.30,000/-(Rs.10,000/- X 3). Thus, the enhancement will be Rs.3,000/-(Rs.30,000/- - Rs.27,000/-).

¶38

Therefore, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to in addition to the sum that is awarded by the Tribunal will be Rs.78,600/(Rs.75,600/Rs.3,000/-). Hence, in the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is disposed of with the following

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶41

(ii) The compensation that is awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore through orders in MVC No.6835/2018, dated 06.03.2021 is enhanced by Rs.78,600/-.

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38950 MFA No. 4482 of 2021

¶43

(iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶44

(iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶45

(v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

¶46

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶47

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Smt. Eramma v. Mr. Haseena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Eramma v. Mr. Haseena

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

Sri Ashfaq Ahmed Vs M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Smt Rangamma Vs Smt Kariyamma

Smt. Lalithamma Vs Sri. Santhosh Kumar K G

Smt. Kavitha Basavaraj Uppar Vs Aishwarya Chakraborty

Smt. Rajamma Vs the Manager

Smt Prameela Vs Mr Mohammed Soukath