Sri T Ramesha Vs Sri B Pratap

THE MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE MAJOR R/AT NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKING INDIA PVT LTD.,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:32828 MFA No. 261 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

MANJUNATHA EMBASY BUSINESS PARK NAGAVARA CIRCLE BANGALORE.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE FOR R2 V/O DTD. 10.09.2025 NOTICE TO R1 DEEMED TO BE SERVED)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THEJUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.06.2022 PASSED IN MVC No.637/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking

¶28

enhancement of the compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 23.06.2022 passed in MVC No. 637/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hiriyur.

¶29

Appellant – claimant made a claim petition praying to award compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 22.04.2016

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:32828 MFA No. 261 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car bearing registration No. KA-04-MR-0319. The Tribunal after recording evidence, appreciating the evidence on record, assessed the compensation and awarded compensation

¶33

under different heads as under:

¶34

1.	Towards loss of earning	Rs.4,05,000.00
2.	Towards medical expenses	Rs.2,00,000.00
3.	Towards attendants charges	Rs.5600.00
4.	Towards laid up period	Rs.45,000.00
5.	Towards transportation	Rs.15,000.00
6.	Towards Spl. Diet	Rs.15,000.00
	TOTAL	Rs.7,35,000.00

¶35

The Tribunal has also awarded interest at the

¶36

rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Claimant has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:32828 MFA No. 261 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned

¶41

counsel for the respondent No. 2 - insurer.

¶42

Learned counsel for appellant would contend that even though the Tribunal considering Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.15 – Income Tax Returns has stated that the average monthly income of the claimant before the accident was Rs.25,000/- has taken the notional income at Rs.15,000/per month. The Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.25,000/- based on his Income Tax Returns. The Tribunal has rightly taken the disability at 15% and applied multiplier of 15 and calculated loss of future income. The compensation awarded under other heads is just and proper. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal.

¶43

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 – insurer would contend that the Tribunal based on the evidence on record has rightly taken the income at Rs.15,000/- per month. There is variation in the profit mentioned in the Income Tax Returns. Claimant has not produced loss of

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:32828 MFA No. 261 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

earnings subsequent to the accident. Compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all heads is just and proper and there are no grounds for enhancement. With this, he prayed to reject the appeal.

¶47

Having heard learned counsel for the parties,

¶48

this Court has perused the impugned judgment, award and trial Court records.

¶49

The Tribunal, based on the evidence on record,

¶50

has assessed the disability of the claimant at 15% to the whole body. The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.15,000/- per month, i.e., notional income. The Tribunal, considering the Income Tax Returns – Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.15 has stated that the average monthly income of the claimant before the accident was Rs.25,000/-. Inspite of that, the Tribunal has taken the notional income as Rs.15,000/- per month. As per Ex.P.14

¶51

Income Tax Returns for the year 2014 – 15 for the financial year 2013 – 14 profit is Rs.1,28,640/-; as per Ex.P.15 – for the financial year 2014 – 15 profit is

¶52

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:32828 MFA No. 261 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Rs.2,47,840 and as per Ex.P.16 – for the financial year 2015 – 16 profit is Rs.3,63,760/-. Considering the profits for three years, the profit of the claimant is not constant and it is fluctuating, it is increasing year by year. Considering the said aspect income of the claimant has to be taken at Rs.20,000/- per month. Considering the said aspect claimant is entitled to loss of future income as under:

¶55

20000 X 12 X 15 X 15% = 540000

¶56

Claimant is entitled to loss of future income in a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- as against Rs.4,05,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation in a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent No. 2 – insurer is liable to pay the said enhanced compensation with interest.

¶57

In the result, the following;

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:32828 MFA No. 261 of 2023

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

O R D E R

¶62

i) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶63

ii) Appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶64

from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶65

iii) Respondent No.2 – insurer shall deposit the said enhanced compensation with interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from this day failing which it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from this day till the date of payment.

¶66

iv) Claimant is entitled to release of the entire

¶67

enhanced compensation.

¶68

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶69

LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69

Sri T Ramesha v. Sri B Pratap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T Ramesha v. Sri B Pratap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thippeeramma @ Thippamma Vs Revanasiddaiah S

The Manager Vs Girija Mogerthi

Suneetha Katti Vs Sri Ravikumar

Smt. Yashodhamma, Vs Mr. Umesha M

Syed Maqbool. A.D. Vs the Manager

Murthy @ Narasimhamurthy Vs Kariyaiah