Partly allowed

Ramesha v. Mahadeva

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2024MFA/658/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the first appeal partly, enhancing compensation from Rs. 1,34,030 to Rs. 2,62,630 for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The Court corrected the disability percentage and notional income used for calculating future loss of income and increased awards for pain and suffering and incidental expenses.

What did the court decide?

Modified the judgment and award; enhanced total compensation to Rs. 2,62,630 payable by respondents with interest at 6% per annum.

Ramesha Vs Mahadeva — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:2789 MFA No. 658 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 658 OF 2020 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O LATE KULLAPPA, R/O BEHIND SCHOOL, KALLAHALLI, MANDYA CITY.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA T.P, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

MAHADEVA, MAJOR, S/O LATE MADAIAH, RESIDING AT NO.2, HEBBAL INDUSTRIAL AREA, INFOSYS ROAD, MYSORE, (OWNER OF TAVERA CAR NO.KA-09-C-1342)

¶13

THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, M.C. ROAD, MANDYA (POLICY ISSUING OFFICE NO.1134, DEVARU MANSION, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, CHAMARAJAPURA, MYSORE - 4.)

¶14

MAHADEVA, MAJOR, S/O LATE NINGAIAH,

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:2789 MFA No. 658 of 2020

¶16

R/AT NO. 1785/2, WATER TANK ROAD, KALLAHALLI, MANDYA.

¶17

THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, M.H. BORAIAH BUILDING, V.V.ROAD, MANDYA.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. S. KRISHNA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1141/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MANDYA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant questioning the judgment and award dated 19.08.2019 passed in MVC No.1141/2016 by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Mandya (for short 'the Tribunal'). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:2789 MFA No. 658 of 2020

¶25

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶26

Brief facts of the case is as under:

¶27

That on 26.12.2015, the claimant was travelling on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-09-EM-9930 as a pillion rider along with one Mahadeva as the rider. The rider of the motor cycle was riding the same on Mysore-Bangalore road in a rash and negligent manner at high speed. When it reached Bangalore-Mysore main road near nursery in between Indavalu and Siddaiana koppalu village, one Tavera Car bearing registration No.KA-09-C-1342 was travelling ahead of the motor cycle. The driver of the car was also driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and without giving any signal or indication, the driver of the car took the car towards left side and the rider of the motor cycle who was also riding the motor cycle rashly and negligently dashed against the hind portion of the car which led to the occurrence of the accident. As a result, the claimant fell down from the motor cycle and sustained grievous injuries. It is stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tavera Car and also the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:2789 MFA No. 658 of 2020

¶29

cycle. Due to the occurrence of the accident, the claimant was admitted to District Hospital, Mandya wherein he was treated as inpatient and he had sustained Laceration wound over the left leg lower part measuring 2x4 cm, abrasion wound over left foot medial aspect measuring 3x4 cm, other injuries all over the body. X-ray was taken and it showed open fracture of both bones of left leg grade II. Surgery was done by implanting rod, plate and screws and then POP was applied. Due to the occurrence of the accident, the claimant suffered grievous injuries, pain, agony and also lost financial source of income due to the disability.

¶30

3.1. It is the case of the claimant that he was aged 40

¶31

years and was working as Mestri and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month supporting his family. It is stated that prior to the occurrence of the accident, he was hale and healthy. Due to the loss of financial source of earning capacity, he was put to lot of disappointment, frustration, inconvenience and he has suffered permanent disability. Hence, the claimant preferred a claim petition seeking compensation.

¶32

3.2. On service of notice, respondent Nos.2 and 4 made their appearance and filed statement of objections denying the

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:2789 MFA No. 658 of 2020

¶34

case including the age, avocation, income and fastening of liability and negligence as against the driver of the Tavera Car and the driver of the motor cycle. However, respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained absent and was placed exparte before the Tribunal.

¶35

3.3. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration.

¶36

3.4. In order to substantiate the issue and to establish

¶37

the case, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and the doctor as CW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.12, whereas respondent - Insurance Company has examined its officer as RW.1 and marked two documents as per Exs.R.1 and R.2.

¶38

3.5. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the claimants and respondents, on perusal of records and evidence, both oral and documentary, awarded total compensation of an amount of Rs.1,34,030/- at 6% per annum and all the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation at the ratio of 70%:30%.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:2789 MFA No. 658 of 2020

¶41

3.6. Being dissatisfied with the meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶42

It is the contention of learned counsel for claimant that the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation without taking into consideration that the claimant had sustained grievous injury and has undergone surgery for external fixation of his left leg and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering, towards medical expenses, attendant charges, conveyance and nourishment are on the lower side. He further submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding compensation under the head of loss of income during the laid up period. He contends that the Tribunal considered the disability on the lower side for awarding compensation under the head of loss of future income which is contrary to the evidence adduced by the claimant and the same requires to be enhanced in this case.

¶43

Learned counsel for respondent - Insurance Company contends that the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation under all the heads, which does not call for interference by this Court.

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:2789 MFA No. 658 of 2020

¶45

I have heard the learned counsel for the claimant and the learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company.

¶46

There is no dispute that the accident had occurred on 26.12.2015. When the claimant was a pillion rider on the motor cycle with one Mahadeva which was ridden by its rider rashly and negligently dashed against the Tavera Car due to the negligence of the driver of the Tavera car which swerved the car to the left side of the road leading to the occurrence of the accident thereby causing injuries to the body of the claimant. In order to establish and prove this aspect, the claimant has produced Exs.P.1 to P.12. The Police records are marked as Exs.P.1 and P.3 along with medical records which clearly depict that they are the FIR and charge sheet filed against the driver of the car as well as the rider of the motor cycle. Therefore, the negligence is rightly attributed against the driver of the car and the rider of the motor cycle.

¶47

Now coming to the question of age, avocation and income of the claimant, as on the date of the occurrence of the accident, it is pleaded that the claimant was age 40 years. The appropriate multiplier for the age would be 15 which is

¶48

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:2789 MFA No. 658 of 2020

¶49

correctly taken by the Tribunal and it does not call for interference.

¶50

The doctor was examined by way of commission and he has assessed disability at 24% and produced the documents which are marked as Exs.C.1 to C.5. However, doctor has not opined with regard to disability to the whole body except stating the disability to the particular limb. The Tribunal has divided the same into three parts and assessed the disability at 8%. But, however, has taken the disability at 5%. I am afraid that this may not be the procedure to be adopted by the Tribunal as once the disability is assessed by the doctor, who is an expert in the field of medicine and the same is not assessed to the whole body, it can be divided into three parts or the disability to the whole body can be taken as 1/3rd. Hence, 8% is the disability to the whole body. The Tribunal having taken 5% is erroneous and the same is not acceptable. The disability is assessed at 8% and there is no contra material evidence placed by the Insurance Company. It cannot be reduced drastically lesser than what is opined by the doctor.

¶51

The Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.8,000/- per month as notional income. The accident had occurred on

¶52

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:2789 MFA No. 658 of 2020

¶53

26.12.2015. According to the Legal Services Authority Chart, notional income for the year 2015 is considered at Rs.9,000/per month. In the case where there is no proof of income, the Tribunal as well as this Court should relegate itself to the notional income chart provided by the Legal Services Authority. Hence, income of the claimant is taken as Rs.9,000/- as against Rs.8,000/-. Hence, loss of future income would be Rs.1,29,600/- (Rs.9,000x12x15x8%) as against Rs.72,000/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶54

Towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-. I deem it appropriate to award additional amount of Rs.25,000/- under this head and the same

¶55

is enhanced to Rs.45,000/- .

¶56

Towards medical expenses, Rs.4,030/- is awarded by the Tribunal on actual basis and no interference is called for.

¶57

Towards attendant charges, conveyance, nursing care, nourishment and towards other incidental expenses, the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.12,000/- where as the claimant was inpatient for 14 days. Hence, additional

¶58

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:2789 MFA No. 658 of 2020

¶59

Rs.10,000/- is granted under this head and the same is enhanced to Rs.22,000/- .

¶60

Towards loss of income during the laid up period, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.16,000/-. In view of this Court enhancing the income to Rs.9,000/- per month, at least three months would be required to recover and get back to his normal day to day activities. Hence, Rs.27,000/- (Rs.9,000x3) is awarded under this head.

¶61

Towards physical disability affecting future amenities in the life of the claimant, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-. I am of the opinion that this is on the lower side and additional Rs.20,000/- is awarded under this head and the same is enhanced to Rs.35,000/- .

¶62

In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,62,630/- as against

¶63

Rs.1,34,030/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶64

SL.	Heads	Amount in Rs.
No.
1.	Pain and sufferings	45,000-00
2.	Medical expenses	4,030-00

¶65

11 -

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC:2789 MFA No. 658 of 2020

¶67

3.	Attendant charges, con nursing care, nourishment and other incidental expenses	veyance, towards	22,000-00
4.	Loss of income during the period	laid up	27,000-00
5.	Loss of future income permanent disability	due to	1, 29,600-00
6.	Physical disability affecting amenities in life	future	35,000-00
	TOTAL		2,62,630-00

¶68

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶69

ORDER

¶70

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;

¶71

ii) The judgment and award dated 19.08.2019 passed in MVC.No.1141/2016 by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Mandya, is modified;

¶72

iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,62,630/- as against Rs. 1,34,030 /- awarded by the tribunal along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization;

¶73

iv) The entire compensation amount shall be paid by the respondent - Insurance Company within a

¶74

12 -

¶75

NC: 2024:KHC:2789 MFA No. 658 of 2020

¶76

period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶77

v) The original records shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith;

¶78

vi) The enhanced compensation shall be paid in accordance to the proportion stipulated by the Tribunal which shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 CT: BHK

Ramesha v. Mahadeva

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesha v. Mahadeva

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

Santhosh Poojary Vs Sathish

Sri M Mani Vs Sri a Gulsar

Shri Hemanth Kumar Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Mahadeva Naik B. M. Vs P. R. Rajendran

Eshwar Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

Sri Kumara Vs Sri Ramesha