Dismissed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri R Manjappa

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2012MFA/5065/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal by United India Insurance against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that a pre-existing liver disease aggravated by the accident entitled the claimant to full medical reimbursement and reasonable compensation for pain and sufferings.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the appeal was dismissed and the Tribunal's award was upheld.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri R Manjappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA

¶6

MFA.No.5065 OF 2008 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch Office at No.15/130, Subash Road, Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh. Represented by its Deputy Manager, Regional Office, No.25, M.G.Road, Bangalore-560 001. ... Appellant

¶9

[By Sri.R.Rajagopalan, Advocate]

¶10

AND:

¶11

Sri.R.Manjappa, Since Deceased by his L.Rs.

¶12

(a) Smt.Nanjamma, W/o Late Sri.Manjappa, Aged about 45 years.

¶13

(b) Sri.M.Dilipkumar, S/o Late Sri.Manjappa, Aged about 19 years.

¶14

Both are Residing at Adilahalli, Navile Post, Begur Hobli,

¶15

¶16

Channarayapatna Taluk, Mudhol Taluk. Hassan District-573 116.

¶17

Sri.C.Akkala Reddy, S/o Sri.Subba Reddy, Aged Major, Residing at No.15/140, C.B.Road, Tadpatri, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh-515 411.

¶18

Sri.Prakash, S/o Sri.Javaregowda, Aged Major Residing at Chikkakadalur Village, Dudda Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District-573 118.

¶19

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Sri.Venkateshwara Building, B.M.Road, Hassan-573 201. ...Respondents

¶20

[By Sri.C.R.Gopalaswamy, Advocate for R-1 (a) & (b); Notice to R-2 is dispensed with vide order dated 08.03.2012; R-3 & R-4 are served but unrepresented]

¶21

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of MV Act, against the judgment and award dated 29.12.2007 passed in MVC No.175/2004 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Channarayapatna, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,84,250/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit or payment.

¶22

¶23

This Appeal coming for hearing on this day, the court delivered the following:

¶24

This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the common judgment and award dated 29.12.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and MACT, Channarayapatna in Hassan District, insofar as it relates to MVC No.175/2004 awarding total compensation of Rs.2,84,250/- towards the personal injuries sustained by the claimant-R.Manjappa. During the pendency of this appeal, the respondent–original claimant R Manjappa died and thereafter his wife and son have been brought on record as legal representatives.

¶25

The claimant-R. Manjappa filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the personal injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident that occurred on 19.04.2004. According to the claimant, on the fateful day, he and his minor son-M.Dilip Kumar were proceeding in a Maxi Cab bearing registration No. KA-13-

¶26

¶27

4310 to his village and when the vehicle reached Gandasi Hand Post on Hassan-Tiptur Road, at Rudradevanahalli, the vehicle was stopped for passengers to alight, at that time, the lorry bearing registration No. PY-01-M-0709 came from the opposite direction driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tempo in which he was travelling, as a result, they sustained severe injuries. It is his further case that immediately he was taken to Chamaraja hospital at Hassan and from there, he went to General Hospital at Tiptur, St.Johns Hospital and KIMS Hospital at Bangalore and Siddhartha Hospital at Tumkur. According to him, as a result of the accident, he sustained injuries to his spleen and liver and he spent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for his treatment and has also undergone great amount of pain and sufferings. The petition was contested by the appellant-Insurer of the lorry.

¶28

In the light of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

¶29

i) Whether the petitioners prove that the

¶30

¶31

accident in question was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing Reg. No.PY-01-M-0709 by its driver vis-à-vis the 2nd respondent proves that it was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Maxi Cab bearing registration No.KA-13-4310 by its driver?

¶32

ii) Whether the petitioners prove that they had sustained injuries in the said accident?

¶33

iii) Whether the 4th Respondent proves that the drivers of both the vehicle have no valid and effective DL at the relevant time?

¶34

iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If yes, what amount and from whom?

¶35

v) What order or award?

¶36

¶37

In support of the claim, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and also examined the Doctor, who treated him and other witnesses. He produced as many as 89 documents. On the other hand, the appellant-Insurer did not lead any evidence either oral or documentary. The Tribunal on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition and granted compensation of Rs.2,84,250/- under different heads as under:-

¶38

Pain and sufferings	Rs. 50,000/-
Medical expenses	Rs. 2,04,000/-
Nourishious Food	Rs. 7,200/-
Attendant expenses	Rs. 7,200/-
Loss of earning	Rs. 15,000/-
Total	Rs. 2,84,250/-

¶39

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and

¶40

award the insurer of the offending vehicle is in appeal before this Court. The grievance of the appellant-Insurer is that, in the light of the evidence on record, the claimant

¶41

¶42

had pre-existing liver disease and in the absence of any evidence that the claimant sustained any blow on to his abdomen, subsequent treatment taken by the claimant for the liver damage could not have been reimbursed to the claimant since the said disease was not attributable to the accident. It is also the grievance of the appellant that in the light of the above, the compensation of Rs.50,000/towards pain and sufferings is also uncalled for.

¶43

I have heard Sri. R. Rajagopalan,learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. C.R. Gopalaswamy, learned counsel for Respondent-No.1. I have perused the records secured from the Tribunal.

¶44

The appellant has not disputed the accident and the involvement of the lorry in the accident. The finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding actionable negligence is also not seriously challenged.

¶45

Perusal of the judgment under appeal indicates

¶46

¶47

that in the light of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the insurer about the claimant suffering from pre-existing liver disease, the Tribunal has recorded the finding that the claimant had a pre-existing liver disease, but on account of this accident the said disease got aggravated and that led him to undergo a prolonged treatment in various hospitals, as such, he is entitled for reimbursement of the medical expenses as also the compensation towards pain and sufferings. Perusal of the oral and documentary evidence clearly indicate that the claimant had pre-existing liver disease. As per the evidence on record, immediately after the accident, the claimant was taken to Sri Chamarajendra Hospital at Hassan, wherein on examination, he was found having bleeding in the left ear and an abrasion on the left ear. Ex.P.6-wound certificate issued by Sri Chamarajendra Hospital at Hassan would also indicate that he was admitted at 8.00pm on 19.04.2004 and at about 12.00 ‘O’ Clock in the midnight on the same day he got discharged himself from the hospital. The claimant has come out with

¶48

¶49

an explanation as to why he got discharged himself against the medical advise. According to him, his minor son, who had also sustained severe injuries, needed immediate treatment in a major hospital, therefore, his presence was very much needed in getting proper medical treatment to his minor son, as such, he was forced to get himself discharged from the hospital against the medical advise. The documentary evidence produced by the claimant would further indicate that, on 20.04.2004 itself he got himself examined by a Doctor in Tiptur and thereafter he went to St.John’s Medical College Hospital on 03.05.2004. Even before he went to St. John’s Hospital at Bangalore, he had undergone abdominal pelvic sonography on 01.05.2004, apart from undergoing two other diagnostic examinations. The abdominal sonography report as per Ex.P15 issued by Vismaya Scanning and X- Ray at Tiptur, there was Mild Hapatomegaly, Moderate Splenomegly and moderate to Gross Free Fluid. The oral evidence of the Doctor, who treated the claimant would indicate that the liver damage or liver disease could not

¶50

¶51

be attributable to the accident. It is on the basis of this answer elicited from the Doctor, the Tribunal has opined that the claimant was suffering from pre-existing liver disease.

¶52

It is the contention of the learned counsel for

¶53

the appellant that there was no complaint by the claimant that in the accident, he had a blow on his stomach or abdomen and in the absence of any such statement, the subsequent problem with his liver cannot be attributed to the accident. No doubt in the statement of the claimant before the police, based on which the police registered the case, he has not disclosed that he had a blow on his abdomen. However, the complaint or FIR is not an encyclopedia, therefore, it cannot be expected that the complainant’s statement should contain all the minute details. No doubt, in an accident of this nature, the injured may not immediately be in a position to disclose all the details as to which part of the body hit him with what kind of articles inside the vehicle. The possibility of the

¶54

¶55

claimant sustaining blunt injury in the accident since the accident occurred as a result of the lorry coming from the opposite direction, hitting tempo, in which he was travelling, cannot be ruled-out. The claimant might not have immediately noticed the pain in his abdomen and such pain appears to have surfaced after a couple of days.

¶56

Having regard to the oral and documentary evidence, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal is justified in drawing an inference that, as a result of the accident, the pre-existing liver disease got aggravated and that led him to immediately go for such a prolonged treatment in various hospitals, spending huge amount running to over Rs.2 Lakhs.

¶57

The appellant does not dispute the fact that the claimant has spent amount over Rs.2 Lakhs towards medical treatment. Having regard to the materials on record, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the award passed by the Tribunal towards the medical

¶58

¶59

expenses. The medical expense made by the claimant in this regard has been rightly attributed to the accident in question. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for reimbursement of the said amount, as such the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs and add towards the medical expenses. Therefore, I find no grounds to interfere with the said finding. The voluminous medical record would indicate the period of treatment undergone by the claimant in various hospitals from the date of accident. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded towards pain and sufferings, in my opinion, cannot be termed either as excessive or as exorbitant. The award of the said amount is just and proper having regard to the nature and gravity of the injuries as well as duration of the treatment undergone by the claimant. In this view of the matter, I find no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal, as such, the appeal is devoid of merit. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

¶60

The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to

¶61

¶62

the Tribunal concerned for disbursement in accordance

¶63

with the award.

¶64

SD/JUDGE

¶65

KGR*

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri R Manjappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri R Manjappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmana S/O Narayanappa Vs the State by Kanakapura Rural Police

Lakshmana S/O Narayanappa Vs the State by Kanakapura Rural Police

B Manju S/O Bhaskar Naidu Vs the State of Karnataka

Rudresh S/O Kariyaiah Vs the Divisional Manager the New India Assurance Co.

Smt Vinoda Murthy Vs N Raghavendra S/O N Gururaja

Sri Vinay Kumar S/O Sampangi Vs the Managing Director