Partly allowed

M/S Icici Lombard Gic Ltd. v. Ramakrishnaiah

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2015MFA/113/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's quantum of compensation awarded after a motorcycle accident. The Court upheld the finding of the lorry driver's negligence but modified the compensation order due to overlapping awards and reduced amounts for specific heads. The total compensation was increased from Rs.3,50,432 to Rs.3,20,432.

What did the court decide?

Compensation head modified to Rs.3,20,432 with interest @ 6% p.a. The impugned judgment and award modified accordingly.

M/S Icici Lombard Gic Ltd. Vs Ramakrishnaiah — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2015)

¶1

1 MFA No.113/2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2015 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.113/2014 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.89, SVR COMPLEX, 2^ND FLOOR, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIWALA, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI B.C.SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADV.) AND:

¶8

RAMAKRISHNAIAH, S/O LATE DODDAIAH, NOW AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, 7^TH MAIN, 15^TH CROSS, HAVANOOR LAYOUT EXTENTION, HESARAGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 73.

¶9

MANJUNATH, S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, MAJOR, DYAGENEHALLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 137. ... RESPONDENTS

¶10

(BY SRI SHRIPAD.V.SHASTRI, ADV. FOR R1, R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶11

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:23.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.6024/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL JUDGE,

¶12

¶13

MFA No.113/2014

¶14

MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,50,432/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.

¶15

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The appellant-insurer has challenged the

¶18

findings on negligence and on quantum of compensation granted to the first respondent for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

¶19

The facts reveal that on 25.06.2012 at 2.35 p.m., when the first respondent was proceeding on his motor cycle, the lorry bearing registration No.KA-02-D-869 driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the first respondent and as a result, he sustained grievance injuries. He was treated in the hospital at Bangalore. He suffered disability. Hence, he made a claim for compensation on all the heads.

¶20

After recording the evidence, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.3,50,432/- as compensation.

¶21

¶22

MFA No.113/2014

¶23

Aggrieved by the findings on negligence and on quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for both the

¶25

parties.

¶26

It is the contention of the learned counsel

¶27

for the appellant that there was negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle i.e., the first respondent and the fining on negligence is improper. It is also his submission that the compensation granted towards ‘loss of future earnings’ is unwarranted and there is double payment for ‘loss of amenities’. On these grounds, he has sought for setting aside the impugned judgment and award.

¶28

As could be seen from the material placed

¶29

on record, immediately after the accident, the complaint-Ex.P2 was filed against the driver of the lorry, FIR is produced at Ex.P1, Spot Sketch and spot panchanama have been produced at Ex.P3 and P4. The driver of the lorry was charge sheeted and the copy

¶30

¶31

MFA No.113/2014

¶32

of the charge sheet is produced at Ex.P5. In addition

¶33

to the aforesaid documents, it is the first respondent who was examined as PW.1 and on the basis of the aforesaid material, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry.

¶34

It is relevant to note that the appellant has not examined the driver of the lorry to speak the manner in which the accident said to have been occurred. Non-examination of the driver of the lorry also leads to adverse interference. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings on the question of negligence.

¶35

The first respondent is said to have been

¶36

employed as a Supervisor in Ware House. He was earning Rs.12,495/- per month as a salary. The Tribunal assessed the disability at 10%, though the doctor assessed the disability at 9.2%. The first respondent had suffered fracture of lower end of fibula, fracture of bone THMJ left and comminuted

¶37

¶38

MFA No.113/2014

¶39

compound fracture of great thigh. He underwent surgery on two occasions and it is on the basis of the aforesaid material placed on record, the disability has to be assessed by the Tribunal. Looking to the nature of the injuries suffered and the material placed on record, the disability was accepted by the Tribunal.

¶40

Though it is contended that the first

¶41

respondent is continued in the service even after the accident, the appellant has not examined any person of the Ware House. There is no material on record to

¶42

establish that there is discontinuation of the employment. The employer is a private person and it

¶43

may not be possible by the first respondent to produce any document regarding discontinuation of service. Therefore, I do not find any ground to hold that the first respondent has not suffered any loss in the income due to the disability.

¶44

Though the first respondent has not

¶45

produced ample material on record to show that he

¶46

¶47

MFA No.113/2014

¶48

discontinued from his service, taking into

¶49

consideration that he has suffered as many as three fractures, the compensation granted towards ‘pain and sufferings’ at Rs.30,000/- appears to be lower side. As the first respondent has suffered as many as three major fractures, he is entitled to Rs.20,000/- more than what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶50

Only Rs.3,000/- was granted towards ‘food, nourishment and attendance charges’ etc., though the first respondent was in the hospital for a long period. He undergone two surgeries and he has been looked after so as to enable him to assume to the duty.

¶51

Only Rs.3,000/was awarded towards ‘conveyance charges’ and Rs.3,000/towards

¶52

‘attendance charges’ and towards ‘loss of income during treatment period’, only Rs.12,495/- has been granted. As the appellant has undergone two surgeries and three major fractures, it may not be possible for him to assume for the duty in a month. Therefore, the

¶53

¶54

MFA No.113/2014

¶55

first respondent is entitled for an additional sum on these heads as well.

¶56

So far as the ‘loss of future income’ is

¶57

concerned, though there is no material placed on record to establish the discontinuation of service and at the same time, the insurer has not produced any evidence to establish the said facts, in the facts and circumstances and looking to the amount of compensation, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the amount granted towards ‘loss of future income’.

¶58

The Tribunal has granted Rs.30,000/towards ‘loss of joy and happiness’ and again granted Rs.30,000/towards ‘loss of amenities’. This approach of the Tribunal is improper. A sum of Rs.30,000/- awarded towards ‘loss of amenities’ has to be dropped in addition to reduction of

¶59

compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards ‘loss of joy and

¶60

happiness’. Thereby, a sum of Rs.50,000/- on the aforesaid heads will have to be reduced. In the

¶61

¶62

MFA No.113/2014

¶63

circumstances, The first respondent is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,20,432/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant has succeeded to the aforesaid extent.

¶64

Therefore, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The judgment and award are modified. The first respondent is entitled to the compensation of Rs.3,20,432/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its payment.

¶65

The amount in deposit is ordered to be

¶66

transmitted to the Tribunal.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

M/S Icici Lombard Gic Ltd. v. Ramakrishnaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Icici Lombard Gic Ltd. v. Ramakrishnaiah

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

The Managing Director Vs Sri Basavaiah

Shivashankar @ Shivakumar Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Smt Jyothi W/O Late Ragavendra Vs M K Shivananjaiah

Sri Mohan Rao Vs a Saravanan

Sushma Vs Honnaiah

Master Nithish Vs Syed Ashfak