Partly allowed

The Divisional Manager v. Renuka @ Rekha

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2020MFA/21060/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Divisional Manager of Oriental Insurance Company appealed against the compensation award dated 29.11.2012 under M.V.C.No.2368/2011, contesting the quantum of compensation for a motorcycle accident. The High Court assessed disability at 9% instead of 15%, excluded erroneous loss of dependency, and reduced the award.

What did the court decide?

The award was modified by reducing the total compensation from Rs.2,03,150.52 to Rs.1,46,070.52 after adjusting disability and removing loss of dependency.

The Divisional Manager Vs Renuka @ Rekha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 28^{T H} DAY OF AUGUST 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

M.F.A.NO.21060/2013 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BELGAUM, REP. BY ASSISTANT MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, HUBLI-580020.

¶8

... APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI M.K.SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

SMT.RENUKA @ REKHA D/O LAXMAN TALWAR, AG : 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O BELKUD, TAL: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶12

SHRI LAXMAN KALLAPPA TALAWAR, AGE : MAJOR, OCC: SERVICE, R/O BELKUD, TAL: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶13

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SANTHOSH S.HATTIKATAGI, ADV. FORR.1) (NOTICE TO R.2 : DISPENSED WITH)

¶14

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.11.2012 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND/OR FURTHER RELIEF, AS THIS HON’BLE DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This appeal, though listed for admission, is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶19

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the respondent-Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.11.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Chikodi, at Chikodi, (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for short), in M.V.C.No.2368/2011.

¶20

Parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal.

¶21

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 18.09.2011, the claimant was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.23-X-4289 as a pillion rider,

¶22

¶23

the rider of which was riding it in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the rider lost control and fell down. Due to the impact of the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries on all parts of the body for which, it is claimed that he underwent treatment at various private hospitals, claiming to have spent huge sums of money for the treatment for the injuries sustained in the accident.

¶24

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal in MVC.No.2368/2011 on the ground that he was doing tailoring work and was earning about Rs.6,000/- per month claimed a compensation at Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

¶25

On issuance of notice, respondentInsurance Company appeared and filed its statement of objections and denied the fact that the rider of the motorcycle was riding it in a rash

¶26

¶27

and negligent manner. The age, income and avocation of the claimant were also denied by the respondent-Insurance Company.

¶28

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence.

¶29

The claimant, in order to prove her case, examined herself as PW.1 and a doctor who assessed the claimant for the disability as PW.2 and got marked 16 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.16.

¶30

On the other hand the respondent-Insurance Company examined one witness as RW.1 and marked three documents as Exs.R.1 to R.3, on its behalf.

¶31

The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle (respondent No.1) and further held that the claimant was entitled to

¶32

¶33

a compensation of Rs.2,03,150.52 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the injury sustained by him in the accident. Being aggrieved, the respondent-insurance company has preferred the subject appeal against the award of the Tribunal only on the quantum of compensation.

¶34

Heard learned counsel Sri

¶35

M.K.Soudagar, appearing for Insurance Company and learned counsel Sri Santhosh S.Hattikatagi appearing for claimant.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellantinsurance Company would contend that the Tribunal has taken monthly income on the higher side and has awarded loss of future income, which is grossly high and would contend that on all other heads also the Tribunal has awarded very high compensation for the nature of the injuries and the disability sustained by the claimant.

¶37

¶38

On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant would support the judgment and award of the Tribunal and would contend that the same does not require any interference.

¶39

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only issue that falls for my consideration in the subject appeal is with regard to assessment of compensation by the Tribunal.

¶40

Under the head of loss of future income the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,37,700/- taking the disability of injured at 15%. It is to be noticed that the doctor-PW2, who has issued disability certificate is examined and crossexamined. He is not the treated doctor who has treated the claimant. But he has seen the claimant for the purpose of issuing disability certificate. In the circumstances, the disability determined in terms of disability certificate at 25% to the upper limb will have to be taken at

¶41

¶42

1/3^rd to the whole body for determination of compensation. I deem it appropriate to assess disability to the entire body at 9% and vary the compensation. Hence, the claimant is entitled to a compensation under the head of loss of future income at Rs.82,620/- (Rs.54,000 X 17 X 9 / 100) as against Rs.1,37,700/- determined by the Tribunal.

¶43

The Tribunal has also awarded loss of dependency of Rs.2,000/-. Though amount is meager, the principle of awarding compensation on the loss of dependency in the case of injury is erroneous. Hence, the amount of Rs.2,000/towards loss of dependency will have to be taken away. Hence, the total compensation of Rs.2,03,150.52/- determined by the Tribunal will have to be reduced by Rs.57,080/-.

¶44

Hence, claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,46,070.52/as against Rs.2,03,150.52 awarded by the Tribunal. To the aforementioned extent, the judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified.

¶45

¶46

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in Part.

¶47

The amount in deposit, if any, shall be

¶48

transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

EM/-

The Divisional Manager v. Renuka @ Rekha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager v. Renuka @ Rekha

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

Divisional Manager Vs Mariyappas/O. Mariswamappa Harizan

H Shivalingamma W/O Late H Ramanuja @ H.Ramanjini Vs a K Gangadhara S/O Veerappa

Ajay Kumar S/O Gopalappa, Vs the Divisional Manager

The Divisional Manager, Vs Venkatesh S/O Hanamareddy Hosamani

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Shva Prasad S/O. Venkateshappa

The Divisional Manager Vs Shivaling Kallappa Jakati