Partly allowed

Banappa K G v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2021MFA/1111/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, enhancing compensation for injuries suffered in a motorcycle accident by adjusting notional income and quantum of damages while reducing the interest rate from 9% to 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and award modified to grant compensation of Rs. 12,76,280 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

Banappa K G Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

M.F.A.NO.1111/2017 (MV) C/W. M.F.A.NO.6937/2016 (MV)

¶7

IN M.F.A.NO.1111/2017:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

BANAPPA K.G. S/O. GOVINDAPPA AGED 37 YEARS R/O NO.5, AMBEDKARNAGAR 3^RD CROSS “A” STREET CHIKKABOMMASANDRA CROSS YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU-64

¶10

… APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR T, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS MANAGER NO.28, CENTINARY BUILDING EAST WING, 5^TH FLOOR NEAR CITI BANK, M.G.ROAD BENGALURU-1

¶14

2 . M.VENKATESHAPPA S/O LATE VEERANNA B AGE: MAJOR

¶15

¶16

R/O G 2S, STAR NURSES QTRS SC HOSPITAL COMPOUND HASSAN-573201

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI GOVARDHANA R., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC.NO.4046/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

IN M.F.A.NO.6937/2016:

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

THE LEGAL MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE 5^TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING NO.28, M.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560001

¶23

… APPELLANT

¶24

(BY SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

1 . BANAPPA K.G. S/O GOVINDAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.5, AMBEDKARNAGAR 3^RD CROSS “A” STREET CHIKKABOMMASANDRA CROSS YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU-64

¶27

¶28

2 . M.VENKATESHAPPA S/O LATE VEERANNA B AGE: MAJOR R/AT G 2 S, STAR NURSES QTRS SC HOSPITAL COMPOUND HASSAN-19

¶29

… RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR T., ADVOCATE FOR SRI H.K.BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 13.06.2017 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶31

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC.NO.4046/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.11,40,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶32

THESE MFAs’ COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH ‘VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

Though the appeals are listed for admission today, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the same are taken up for final disposal.

¶35

These two appeals are filed by the claimant and the

¶36

Insurance Company, respectively, challenging the Judgment and Award passed in M.V.C.No.4046/2015 dated 18.08.2016 on the

¶37

¶38

file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT., Bengaluru (SCCH-18) (‘the Tribunal’ for short), questioning the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶39

The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

¶40

The factual matrix of the case is that on 29.07.2015 at about 5:30 p.m., the petitioner was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-06-EJ-6001 from Sira towards Mariyapalya in a slow and cautious manner and when he reached near Kannahalli of Madhugiri Taluk, at that time, the driver of the Car bearing registration No.KA-18-M-7521 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner’s motorcycle. Due to the said impact, the petitioner fell down on the road along with his motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries.

¶41

5. The claimant in the claim petition has contended that

¶42

he was met with an accident on 29.07.2015 at about 5:30 p.m,

¶43

¶44

and he had suffered permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained by him.

¶45

The claimant in order to substantiate his case, he examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined the Doctor as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P14. On the other hand, the respondents have not examined any witness and also not marked any documents. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the claim petition of the petitioner in part granting compensation of Rs.11,40,000/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal both claimant and Insurance Company have preferred these two appeals, respectively.

¶46

The appellant/Insurance Company in MFA

¶47

No.6937/2016 has contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding higher compensation on all the heads. The Tribunal has committed an error in taking the whole body disability at 23%. In fact, the Doctor has assessed the disability at 39% to the right lower limb and 39% to the left lower limb.

¶48

¶49

The Tribunal has committed an error in granting an interest at the rate of 9% p.a. instead of 6% p.a.

¶50

The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in MFA No.1111/2017 would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding meager compensation. The appellant was an inpatient for a period of 20 days and he was undergone operation with internal fixation. Later, he was taken to NIMHANS Hospital, M.S.Ramaiah Hospital and Fortis Hospital and also he had taken the follow up treatment. The appellant claimed the expenses of Rs.5 Lakhs claiming that he was earning Rs.500/- per day working as Coolie and he was aged about 35 years. The Tribunal has committed an error in taking the income of Rs.8,000/- per month; though he was suffered multiple fractures the disability taken as 23% to the whole body, but the Doctor has assessed 26% disability to the whole body. The Tribunal ought to have awarded an interest at the rate of 12% p.a. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶51

Having heard the arguments of the respective counsel and on perusal of the grounds urged in both the appeals

¶52

¶53

and the materials available on record, the points that would arise

¶54

for consideration of this Court are:

¶55

(1) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the just and reasonable compensation?

¶56

(2) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in granting exorbitant compensation as claimed by the Insurance Company?

¶57

(3) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding the interest at 9% p.a. as contended by the Insurance Company?

¶58

(4) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding interest at 12% p.a. as contended by the claimant?

¶59

(5) What Order?

¶60

Point Nos.(1) & (2):

¶61

Having heard the arguments of respective counsel

¶62

and also the material available on record, it is not in dispute with regard to the accident and the only dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation. The respective counsel also not dispute the nature of injuries and fractures suffered by the

¶63

¶64

claimant. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,53,000/taking the income of Rs.8,000/- under the head of ‘loss of future earnings’. The only dispute is with regard to taking of the income. In view of the accident of the year 2015 and in the absence of documentary proof, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income. In the year 2015, the notional income would be Rs.9,000/-. Hence, the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the income as Rs.8,000/-. The Tribunal committed an error in taking the disability of 23% as against the evidence of the Doctor, who deposed 26% and the whole body disability of 26% has to be considered. Having considered the said disability and taking the income of Rs.9,000/- per month, it comes to Rs.4,49,280/- (9000x12x16x26/100) under the head of ‘loss of future earnings’ as against Rs.3,53,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶65

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.70,000/under the head of ‘pain and suffering’ and the same does not require any interference of this Court.

¶66

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/-

¶67

under the head of ‘loss of amenities’. The claimant has to lead

¶68

¶69

rest of his life with the disability of 26%. Hence, the same has to be enhanced to Rs.40,000/- as against Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶70

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,83,000/- under the head of ‘Medical Expenses’ considering all the medical bills. Hence, it does not require any interference of this Court.

¶71

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.44,000/under the head of ‘loss of income during the laid up period and rest period’. It has to be noted that he has suffered the disability in respect of both the limbs and sustained the fractures. When such being the case, it requires minimum six months to re-unite the fractures and having taken note of the same it comes to Rs.54,000/- (9000x6) under the head of ‘loss of income during the laid up period and rest period’.

¶72

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/-

¶73

under the head of ‘attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges’. He was an inpatient for a period of 20 days. Hence,

¶74

¶75

the same is just and reasonable and does not require any interference of this Court.

¶76

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/-

¶77

under the head of ‘future medical expenses’. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Doctor/P.W.2 has deposed that the petitioner needs surgery for removal of implants from his left and right femur, which may costs of Rs.1,20,000/-. The evidence is clear that the fractures are united and it only requires removal of implants in respect of both the lower limbs. Having taken note of the same Rs.30,000/- to each fracture to be awarded. Then, it comes to Rs.60,000/- as against Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶78

Point Nos.(3) & (4):

¶79

The Tribunal awarded the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. It has to be noted that the award was passed in the year 2016 and the accident was taken place in the year 2015 and the Court has to take note of the fact that the rate of interest existing at present in the Nationalised Bank. Hence, it is appropriate to modify the same to 6% p.a. as against 9% p.a. and it is not appropriate to award at the rate of 12% p.a. as

¶80

¶81

contended by the claimant. Hence, I answered point Nos.(3) to (4) are ‘partly affirmative’.

¶82

In the circumstances, the appellant/claimant is

¶83

entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.12,76,280/- as against Rs.11,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶84

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶85

following:

¶86

ORDER

¶87

(i) The appeals are allowed in part.

¶88

(ii) The Judgment and Award passed in M.V.C.No.4046/2015 dated 18.08.2016 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT., Bengaluru (SCCH-18) is modified granting compensation of Rs.12,76,280/- as against Rs.11,40,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit.

¶89

(iii) The respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within six weeks from today.

¶90

¶91

(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶92

(v) The amount in deposit, if any, ordered to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶93

Sd/JUDGE

¶94

cp*

Banappa K G v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banappa K G v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

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

G K Santhosha Vs State by

R N Deepak Vs Papanna

Mr Jayanth Vs Mr Tirumala

Kumar Vs Syed Navaj Ulla

Sri Chennaiah S/O Sri Rangappa Vs Sri Hidayathulla

Bajaj Allainz General Insurance Vs Janardhan