Dismissed

M/S. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Akshath P Acharya

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2020MFA/668/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses two Motor Accident appeals filed by an injured claimant and an insurer against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's compensation award of Rs.2.53 lakh, rejecting arguments for higher income assessment and noting that already reimbursed medical bills did not warrant reduction.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals were dismissed. The order of the Tribunal regarding liability and disbursement of compensation remains intact.

M/S. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

M.F.A.No.1042/2013 c/w M.F.A.No.668/2013 (MV)

¶8

IN M.F.A.No.1042/2013:

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

SRI AKSHATH P. ACHARYA S/O P.JANARDHAN ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.33, OJASWI KUTEERA, 11^TH MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, SRINIVASA LAYOUT, HONGASANDRA, BANGALORE-560068. ...APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI N.MAHALINGA BHAT, ADV.)

¶12

AND :

¶13

1 . ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE, NO.414, VEERSAVARKAR MARG, NEAR SIDDIVINAYAKA TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI.

¶14

2 . SRI VASUKI K.S., S/O K.R.R.SRINATH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, NO.22, 15^TH CROSS, AECS LAYOUT,

¶15

¶16

RMV 2^ND STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE-560094 …RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADV. FOR R-1; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 18.11.2015 NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH.)

¶18

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC No.7894/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & MEMBER MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

IN M.F.A.No.668/2013:

¶20

BETWEEN :

¶21

M/s ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE, NO.414, VEERSAVARKAR MARG, NEAR SIDDIVINAYAKA TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-400025.

¶22

NOW REP. BY ITS MANAGER M/s ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SVR COMPLEX, No.89, 2^ND FLOOR, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-68 ...APPELLANT

¶23

(BY SRI H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADV.)

¶24

AND :

¶25

AKSHATH P. ACHARYA S/O P.JANARDHAN ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.33, OJASWI KUTEERA, 11^TH MAIN, 6^TH CROSS,

¶26

¶27

SRINIVASA LAYOUT, HONGASANDRA, BANGALORE-560068.

¶28

2 . VASUKI K.S., S/O K.R.R.SRINATH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, NO.22, 15^TH CROSS, AECS LAYOUT, RMV 2^ND STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE-560094 …RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI N.MAHALINGA BHAT, ADV. FOR R-1; SRI H.S.LINGARAJ, ADV. FOR R-2.)

¶30

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC No.7894/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & MEMBER MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,53,870/WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶31

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

These appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 22.11.2012 passed in MVC No.7894/2011 by the XIII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short).

¶34

The claimant filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’ for short) claiming

¶35

¶36

compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident that occurred on

¶37

15.10.2011/16.10.2011.

¶38

It was averred in the claim petition that on 15.10.2011/16.10.2011 at mid night 1.15 a.m., the claimant was proceeding in a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-01-ES-738. When he reached near Bellary Road (N.H.T) near Karnataka Kalyana Mantap at Sanjaynagar cross, a Honda City car bearing registration No.KA-04-MJ-4776 (offending vehicle) driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the claimant’s vehicle, due to which the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries and the motorcycle also sustained damages. He was shifted to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital, wherein he has undergone multiple surgeries. He has spent huge amount towards medical expenses. Accordingly, he sought for

¶39

compensation.

¶40

- 5 -

¶41

In response to the notice issued by the

¶42

Tribunal, the insurer appeared through its counsel and filed written statement denying the petition averments. However, the coverage of policy was admitted subject to the terms and conditions of the same. The specific defence taken was that the accident has caused due to the negligence of the claimant himself since the accident occurred in the middle of the road. It was further contended that the driver of the car had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. As such, no liability can be fastened on the insurer.

¶43

The registered owner of the offending vehicle appeared and filed written statement admitting the ownership of the offending vehicle, however denied that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the owner/driver of the offending vehicle.

¶44

On the basis of the pleadings, issues were

¶45

framed by the Tribunal and answered partly allowing

¶46

¶47

the claim petition awarding total compensation of Rs.2,53,870/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved, the claimant as well as the insurer are in appeals.

¶48

Learned counsel for the claimant argued that

¶49

the claimant - injured was aged about 28 years and was a Mechanical Engineer by profession. He was employed in M/s. GM Technical Centre India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. He had applied for appointment at M/s. DEBASCO Hotel, London and pursuant to which an appointment letter was issued offering remuneration of 3800 pounds apart from other facilities. The Tribunal failed to consider these vital aspects in determining the monthly income. The documentary evidence at Exs.P7 and P14 corroborated by the evidence of PW1 would establish the factum of income earned by the claimant - injured.

¶50

- 7 -

¶51

However, the Tribunal has determined the monthly income at Rs.20,000/- which is abysmally low. Learned counsel argued that the compensation awarded under the different heads is meager.

¶52

Learned counsel for the insurer submitted that the medical bills reimbursed by the medi-claim future General Insurance Company to an extent of Rs.85,867.50 as per Ex.P9 ought to have been rejected from the claim made towards medical expenses. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, the compensation awarded under the different heads is liable to be scaled down.

¶53

We have considered the rival submissions of

¶54

the learned counsel for the parties and perused the original records.

¶55

It is discernable that the Tribunal has rejected the contention of the insurer inasmuch as the

¶56

¶57

non-entitlement of the medical bills amounting to Rs.85,867.50 claimed by the claimant referring to the judgment in the case of Shaheed Ahmed vs.

¶58

Shankaranarayana Bhat and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1448. This judgment has been overruled in the case of Andra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another vs. Rathnakar and another reported in ILR 2014 KAR 6083. In the light of the said Division Bench judgment, the claimant is not entitled to medical expenses of Rs.85,867.50 from the insurer as the same has been reimbursed to the claimant.

¶59

Having regard to the quantum, it is evident

¶60

that the claimant was a Mechanical Engineer by profession and an appointment letter was issued by M/s. DEBASCO Hotel at London offering monthly salary of 3800 pounds. No corroborative evidence was let in to substantiate the same. As could be seen from the

¶61

¶62

records, the claimant was employed with M/s. G.M.

¶63

Technical Centre India Pvt. Ltd., as on the date of the accident and to substantiate the same, Ex.P7 – salary slip, Ex.P14 - salary particulars and Ex.P15 - leave certificate are produced. These documents would indicate that the claimant was qualified to earn the salary of Rs.33,844/- per month as per Ex.P14. The disability sustained by the claimant - injured is 10% as evinced from the medical records. He has taken treatment as an inpatient in the hospital for 5 days. Even if the monthly income is considered at Rs.33,844/deducting medical expenses of Rs.85,867.50, the difference in the total compensation would be minimal. Having regard to the medical records, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶64