Partly allowed

Lokesh B R v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2021MFA/1510/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amply considered six miscellaneous first appeals under S.173(1) MV Act regarding liability quantum and compensation assessed in motor accident claims. Court affirmed 10% liability for parked lorry insurer but enhanced compensation for injured claimants based on proven income and medical evidence.

What did the court decide?

Compensation awarded in MVC Nos.598/2012, 599/2012 and 600/2012 enhanced to Rs.11,26,000/-, Rs.77,554/- and Rs.6,15,613/- respectively with interest at 7% p.a. Insurer of lorry liability affirmed at 1

Lokesh B R 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 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶8

M.F.A. NO.314 OF 2014 (MV-I)

¶9

C/W

¶10

M.F.A. NO.1509 OF 2014 (MV-I), M.F.A. NO.1510 OF 2014 (MV-I), M.F.A. NO.1511 OF 2014 (MV-I), M.F.A. NO.313 OF 2014 (MV-I) & M.F.A. NO.315 OF 2014 (MV-I)

¶11

IN MFA NO.314/2014:

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PEENYA BRANCH OFFICE, BANGALORE-560 058.

¶14

THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.18, 5^TH & 6^TH FLOORS, KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001. REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER

¶15

...APPELLANT

¶16

(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

AND:

¶19

SRI. S.MANJUNATH S/O SRI.LATE S.M.SURENDRA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.153, SHANTHI NIVASA, 12^TH CROSS, SARAKKI MAIN ROAD, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560078. 2. M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., EAST WING, 5^TH FLOOR, CENTERINARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 3. SRI. MAHESH REDDY.S.R. S/O SRI. RAMA REDDY, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.63, 11^TH CROSS, SARAKKI, J.P NAGAR 1^ST PHASE, BANGALORE-560 078.

¶20

SRI H.GOPAL MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT KODIHALLI, SAHAKARANAGARA POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 078. …RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. P. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; NOTICE SERVED TO RESPONDENT NO.3 BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.600/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER MACT-4, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,44,000/WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶23

¶24

IN MFA NO.1509/2014:

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

NAGARAJA .A., S/O ANNAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.91, SARAKKI MAIN ROAD, OPP. MKR PLAZA, J.P. NAGAR. 1^ST PHASE, BANGALORE-560078. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. P. SURESH, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., EAST WING, 5^TH FLOOR, CENTERINARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. REPT. BY ITS INCHARGE MANAGER.

¶29

MAHESH REDDY S.R., S/O RAMA REDDY S.A., MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.63, 11^TH CROSS, SARAKKI, J.P NAGAR, 1^ST PHASE, BANGALORE-560078.

¶30

M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.750, RAJANNA BUILDING, NEAR ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE, PEENYA 1^ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560058. REPT. BY ITS INCHARGE MANAGER.

¶31

H. GOPAL, S/O DAIRY, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT: KODUGEHALLI, SAHAKARANAGAR POST YELAHANKA-HO, BANGALORE-560064.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

¶34

(BY SRI. H.N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶35

NOTICE SERVED TO RESPONDENT NO.2 BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶36

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.598/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER MACT-4, BANGALORE ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶37

IN MFA NO.1510/2014:

¶38

BETWEEN:

¶39

LOKESH B.R. S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT: NO.3, NEAR LAKSHMI GRANITE, SARAKKI, J.P NAGAR, BANGALORE-560078.

¶40

...APPELLANT

¶41

(BY SRI. P. SURESH, ADVOCATE)

¶42

AND:

¶43

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., EAST WING, 5^TH FLOOR, CENTERINARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. REPT. BY ITS INCHARGE MANAGER.

¶44

MAHESH REDDY S.R., S/O RAMA REDDY S.A., MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.63, 11^TH CROSS, SARAKKI, J.P NAGAR, 1^ST PHASE, BANGALORE-560078.

¶45

M/S. UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

¶46

¶47

NO.750, RAJANNA BUILDING, NEAR ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE, PEENYA 1^ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560058. REPT. BY ITS INCHARGE MANAGER.

¶48

H. GOPAL, S/O DAIRY, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT: KODUGEHALLI, SAHAKARANAGAR-POST YELAHANKA-HO, BANGALORE-560064.

¶49

…RESPONDENTS

¶50

(BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; NOTICE SERVED TO RESPONDENT NO.2 BUT UNREPRESENTED; SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

¶51

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.599/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER MACT-4, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶52

IN MFA NO.1511/2014:

¶53

BETWEEN:

¶54

S. MANJUNATH S/O LATE S.M. SURENDRA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT: NO.153, SHANTHI NIVASA, 12^TH CROSS, SARAKKI MAIN ROAD, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560078.

¶55

...APPELLANT

¶56

(BY SRI. P. SURESH, ADVOCATE)

¶57

AND:

¶58

¶59

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., EAST WING, 5^TH FLOOR, CENTERINARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. REPT. BY ITS INCHARGE MANAGER. 2. MAHESH REDDY S.R., S/O RAMA REDDY S.A., MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.63, 11^TH CROSS, SARAKKI, J.P NAGAR, 1^ST PHASE, BANGALORE-560078.

¶60

M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.750, RAJANNA BUILDING, NEAR ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE, PEENYA 1^ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560058. REPT. BY ITS INCHARGE MANAGER.

¶61

H. GOPAL, S/O DAIRY, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT: KODUGEHALLI, SAHAKARANAGAR-POST YELAHANKA-HO, BANGALORE-560064.

¶62

…RESPONDENTS

¶63

(BY SRI. H.C.BETSUR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; NOTICE SERVED TO RESPONDENT NO.2 BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶64

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.600/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-4, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶65

¶66

IN MFA NO.313/2014:

¶67

BETWEEN:

¶68

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PEENYA BRANCH OFFICE, BANGALORE-560058. THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.18, 5^TH AND 6^TH FLOORS, KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶69

SRI. NAGARAJA A S/O SRI. ANNAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.91, SARAKKI MAIN ROAD, OPP. MKR PLAZA, J P NAGAR 1^ST PHASE, BANGALORE-560078.

¶70

M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., EAST WING, 5^TH FLOOR, CENTERINARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 3. SRI. MAHESH REDDY.S.R. S/O SRI. RAMA REDDY, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.63, 11^TH CROSS, SARAKKI, J.P NAGAR 1^ST PHASE, BANGALORE-560078.

¶71

SRI H.GOPAL S/O SRI MAJOR IN AGE,

¶72

¶73

R/AT KODIHALLI, SAHAKARANAGARA POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 078.

¶74

…RESPONDENTS

¶75

(BY SRI. P. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;

¶76

NOTICE SERVED TO RESPONDENT NO.3 BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶77

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.598/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-4, BANGALORE AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,39,000/WITH INTEREST AT 6% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶78

IN MFA NO.315/2014:

¶79

BETWEEN:

¶80

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PEENYA BRANCH OFFICE, BANGALORE-560 058.

¶81

THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.18, 5^TH & 6^TH FLOORS, KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER

¶82

(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶83

AND:

¶84

SRI. LOKESH B.R., S/O SRI. S.B.RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶85

¶86

R/AT NO.3, NEAR LAKSHMI GRANITE, SARAKKI, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560078.

¶87

M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., EAST WING, 5^TH FLOOR, CENTERINARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶88

SRI. MAHESH REDDY.S.R. S/O SRI. RAMA REDDY, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.63, 11^TH CROSS, SARAKKI, JP NAGAR 1^ST PHASE, BANGALORE-560078.

¶89

SRI H.GOPAL S/O SRI MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT KODIHALLI, SAHAKARANAGARA POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE-560078.

¶90

…RESPONDENTS

¶91

(BY SRI. P. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; NOTICE SERVED TO RESPONDENT NO.3 BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶92

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESS ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.599/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER MACT-4, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.40,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶93

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, NATARAJ RANGASWAMY, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶94

¶95

JUDGMENT

¶96

MFA Nos.313/2014, 314/2014 and 315/2014 are filed by the insurer of the lorry bearing registration number KA-04-B-3773 challenging the liability imposed upon it by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-4) to pay 10% of the compensation awarded in MVC Nos.598/2012, MVC No.600/2012 and MVC

¶97

No.599/2012 respectively.

¶98

MFA Nos.1509/2014, 1510/2014 and 1511/2014 are filed by the respective claimant challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the MVC Nos.598/2012, 599/2012 and 600/2012 respectively.

¶99

Though these appeals are listed for orders on interlocutory application, yet they are taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶100

¶101

The appellant in MFA Nos.313/2014, 314/2014 and 315/2014 will henceforth be referred to as the ‘insurer’ of the lorry involved in the accident while the respective appellant in MFA Nos.1509/2014, 1510/2014 and 1511/2014 will henceforth be referred to as the ‘claimant’.

¶102

The claim petitions disclose that 23-11-2011 at 10:40 a.m., all the three claimants were travelling by a car bearing registration number KA-05-MF5967 (henceforth referred to as ‘car’) on National Highway No.4. When they reached Makali Bridge, Dasanapura hobli, the car dashed against a lorry bearing registration number KA-04-B-3773 (henceforth referred to as ‘lorry’) that was negligently parked on the road without any hazard lights on, which resulted in injuries to the occupants of the car. The respective claimant in MVC No.598/2012 and MVC No.599/2012 were shifted to Harsha Hospital, Nelamangala and then shifted to Rajshekar Hospital, Bangalore for further treatment. The

¶103

¶104

claimant in MVC No.600/2012 was shifted to Harsha Hospital and later to Bharathi Nursing home. The driver of the lorry lodged a complaint against the driver of the car and Crime No.486/2011 was registered by Madanayakanahalli police for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the car. The claimants thereafter filed claim petitions claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-, Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.18,00,000/- respectively in MVC Nos.598/2012, 599/2012 and 600/2012 against the owner and insurer of both car and the lorry.

¶105

The insurer of the car and lorry appeared

¶106

through their respective counsel and contested the claim petition and contended that the accident did not occur due to the negligence of the driver of the respective vehicles. They contended that the driver of their respective vehicles did not possess a valid licence to drive the same. Thus they contended that they were not liable to indemnify the

¶107

¶108

owners against the compensation that may be awarded by the Tribunal.

¶109

The claimants were examined as PWs.1 to PW.3. PW.1 marked Exs.P1 to P15 while PW.2 marked documents as Exs.P16 to 20 and PW.3 marked documents as per Exs.P21 to 28. The doctor who treated PW.1 was examined as PW.4 and he marked Exs.P29 to 31 and the Doctor who treated PW.3 was examined as PW.5 who marked Exs.P32 to 34. The medical records of PW.3 were procured through PW.6 who marked it as Ex.P35. The insurer got examined its Assistant Manager as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R1.

¶110

The Tribunal noticed from the documents placed on record by the claimants such as complaint, FIR, charge sheet, which indicated that the driver of the car was negligent and was responsible for the accident and thus attributed 90% negligence against the driver of the car and 10% negligence upon the driver of the lorry.

¶111

¶112

In so far as the claim for compensation is

¶113

concerned, the Tribunal noticed that the claimant in MVC No.598/2012 had filed his income tax returns for the assessment year 2011-12, wherein his gross income was Rs.3,33,730/- of which a sum of Rs.7,594/- was the tax paid and thus the annual income was Rs.3,26,131/- and income tax returns for the year 2012-13 indicated a gross salary of Rs.3,26,131/- and after deducting the tax of Rs.6,275/-, his annual income was Rs.3,19,856/- and it noticed that this claimant had suffered (i) left acetabular fracture (ii) right tibia lateral condylar fracture with depression (iii) multiple lacerations on left side of the face and multiple abrasions over face/shoulder and arms. It noticed from the evidence of PW.4 that the claimant was an inpatient from 23/11/2011 to 01/12/2011 during which he underwent open reduction and internal fixation of right lateral tibial condylar fracture with internal plates and conservatively managed the other fracture. He underwent upper eye lid reconstruction. PW.4 deposed that after the surgery and conservative treatment, the fractures had

¶114

¶115

united. He deposed that the disability suffered by this claimant was 15% to the whole body. The Tribunal considered the notional income of this claimant at a sum of Rs.5,000/per month and awarded the following

¶116

compensation:

¶117

Heads of compensation	Amount in Rupees
Pain and suffering	40,000/-
Loss of amenities and	20,000/-
happiness
Medical and Incidental charges	2,06,000/-
Loss of earning during the period of treatment	15,000/-
Loss of future earning due to disability	1,08,000/-
Future medical expenses TOTAL	50,000/- 4,39,000/-

¶118

The Tribunal awarded interest at 6% per annum on the

¶119

aforesaid compensation from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.

¶120

In so far the claimant in MVC No.599/2012,

¶121

the Tribunal noticed that this claimant was a manager in a cable center, Bangalore and he had suffered (i) laceration over the left fronto parietal region (ii) laceration over the

¶122

¶123

left eye infra orbital region, which in the opinion of PW.5 were simple injuries for which he took treatment from 23-11-2011 to 24-11-2011. Though he claimed that he was earning a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month, he did not place any material on record in proof thereof.

¶124

The Tribunal considered that the injuries were simple in nature and thus awarded global compensation of Rs.40,000/-.

¶125

In so far as the claimant in MVC No.600/2012, the Tribunal noticed that this claimant was a Civil Contractor-Class II and he had suffered (i) fracture of lower 3^rd of right humerus, (ii) fracture of upper 3^rd of left femur and injury to the left ACJ region. He was operated for closed reduction and internal fixation of fracture of left femur with long PFN nails and Open reduction and internal fixation of right humerus with lateral condylar locking plate on 27-11-2011 and was discharged on 02-12-2011. PW.5 – doctor assessed the disability of this claimant at 12% to the whole body. In so far as his income is concerned, he did not place any proof regarding his income. The Tribunal

¶126

¶127

considered the notional income of this claimant at a sum of Rs.5000/per month and awarded the following

¶128

compensation:

¶129

Heads under which compensation is awarded	Amount in Rupees
Pain and suffering	40,000/-
Loss of amenities and happiness	20,000/-
Medical and incidental charges	2,48,000/-
Loss of earnings during the period of treatment	15,000/-
Loss of future earnings due to disability	96,000/-
Future medical expenses	25,000/-
TOTAL	4,44,000/-

¶130

In so far as the liability to pay the

¶131

compensation is concerned, the Tribunal held that the owner and/or insurer of the car is liable to pay 90% of the compensation assessed while the owner and/or insurer of the lorry was directed to pay the remaining 10% of the compensation.

¶132

The insurer of the lorry has filed appeals, MFA Nos.313, 314 and 315 of 2014 challenging the liability to

¶133

¶134

pay 10% of the compensation while the claimants have sought enhancement of the compensation.

¶135

The sole contention of the insurer of the lorry is that the driver of the car had rear ended the lorry which was parked by the side of the road and therefore, no contributory negligence could be attributed to the driver of the lorry.

¶136

The claimants on the other hand, contend that the Tribunal committed an error in assuming a notional income and though they had placed on record documents which indicated that they were not manual labourers but were earning sufficiently.

¶137

In so far as the first contention is concerned, the insurer of the car has not challenged the finding against it that the driver of the vehicle insured by it was responsible for the accident. In so far the liability of the insurer of the lorry is concerned, Ex.P3 indicates that the lorry was parked partly on the main carriage way of the National Highway. Ex.P4 shows that the lorry did not have

¶138

¶139

any mechanical defect and therefore, the contention of the insurer of the lorry that the driver had parked the lorry as it had mechanical defects, does not merit consideration. If the driver of the lorry had parked it on the main carriage way and if the accident occurred at 10.40 a.m, it is quite impossible that the driver of the car would not have noticed it, as the National highway is straight at that point. Therefore, it could be a case of the lorry abruptly swerving to the left to park it, without giving any indication. Hence, the Tribunal was right in fixing contributory negligence of 10% on the driver of the lorry and therefore, the appeals filed by the insurer do not merit consideration.

¶140

In so far as the appeals filed by the claimants, the claimant in MVC No.598/2012 had marked his income tax returns for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13 which indicated gross salary of Rs.3,33,730/- and Rs.3,26,131/respectively and income tax of Rs.7,594/- and Rs.6,275/respectively was paid by the claimant. Thus the mean income of these two years is considered and the income is

¶141

¶142

assessed at a sum of Rs.3,22,996/- per annum. Thus his monthly income was Rs.26,916/- or Rs.27,000/-. Hence, taking into account the disability sustained by the claimant at 15% to the whole body as deposed by PW.4, which was

¶143

not discredited and having regard to the age of the claimant, which was 38 years as on the date of the accident, the compensation awarded to the claimant in

¶144

MVC No.598/2012 deserves to be redetermined as follows:

¶145

Heads under which compensation is awarded	Amount (in Rupees)
Towards Pain and suffering	40,000/-
Loss of amenities	20,000/-
Medical expenses	2,06,000/-
Loss of income during the laid up period of three months at Rs.27,000/-per month	81,000/-
Loss of income due to disability @15%	7,29,000/-
Rs.27,000/-x 12x 15 x 15/100
Future Medical expenses	50,000/-
Total	11,26,000/-

¶146

Hence the award passed by the Tribunal is

¶147

liable to be modified and the compensation payable to the claimant in MVC No.598/2012 is liable to be enhanced to Rs.11,26,000/-

¶148

¶149

In so far as the claimant in MVC No.599/2012

¶150

is concerned, he did not place on record any material regarding his avocation. However, the Tribunal ought to have awarded the medical expenses of Rs.27,554/incurred by this claimant. Though the claimant claimed that he was employed as a manager, he has not adduced any evidence to show that he was not paid any income during his period of treatment or that he had suffered any loss of income due to the injury sustained. However, it is noticed that the Tribunal has not separately considered granting compensation under the other conventional heads such as attendant / conveyance charges and the loss of amenities as well as the pain and suffering. Hence, this Court considers it fit to redetermine the compensation

¶151

payable to this claimant as follows:

¶152

Heads under which compensation is awarded	Amount (in Rupees)
Pain and suffering	25,000/-
Medical expenses	27,554/-
Loss of amenities	15,000/-
Attendant/ conveyance/	10,000/-
incidental expenses
Total	77,554/-

¶153

¶154

Hence the compensation awarded by the

¶155

Tribunal to the claimant in MVC No.599/2012 is to be enhanced to a sum of Rs.77,554/- as against a sum of Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶156

In so far as the claimant in MVC No.600/2012 is concerned, he claimed to be a Class II contractor with the Public Works Department as per Ex.P24 and had a VAT registration as per Ex.P25. He had placed a few work orders issued by the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. Strangely, though he had PAN card, he had not filed his returns. However, having regard to the fact that this claimant was a contractor, his notional income cannot be equated to that of a manual labourer and hence the income of the claimant could be assessed at a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. If the disability of this claimant as assessed by PW.5 at 12% to the whole body is taken into consideration, then the compensation payable to him deserves to be redetermined as follows:

¶157

¶158

Heads of compensation	Amount (in Rupees)
Pain and suffering	40,000/-
Medical expenses	2,45,213/-
Loss of amenities	20,000/-
Loss of income @Rs.10,000/-per month during period of treatment of three months	30,000/-
Loss of income due to disability at	2,30,400/-
12%(Rs.10,000/-x 12 x 16x 12/100)
Attendant / conveyance / nutritious food charges	15,000/-
Future Medical expenses	35,000/-
Total	6,15,613/-

¶159

Hence the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant in MVC No.600/2012 deserves to be enhanced to a sum of 6,15,613/-.

¶160

In so far as the liability to pay the compensation redetermined by this Court is concerned, the owner/insurer of the Car is liable to pay 90% while the owner/insurer of the lorry is liable to pay the remaining 10%.

¶161

Hence the appeals, MFA Nos.313, 314 and 315 of 2014 filed by the insurer of the lorry are dismissed .

¶162

The appeals, MFA Nos.1509/2014, 1510/2014 and 1511/2014, filed by the respective claimant -

¶163

¶164

appellant are allowed in part and in modification of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the compensation awarded to the claimant in MVC No.598/2012 is enhanced from Rs.4,39,000/to Rs.11,26,000/- and the compensation awarded to the claimant in MVC No.599/2012 is enhanced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.77,554/- and the compensation awarded to the claimant in MVC No.600/2012 is enhanced from Rs.4,44,000/- to Rs.6,15,613/-.

¶165

The claimants are entitled to interest at 7%

¶166

per annum on the compensation determined by this Court from the date of the claim petitions till the date of realisation.

¶167

The insurer of the respective vehicles i.e., car

¶168

and lorry involved in the accident are directed to deposit compensation as redetermined by this Court along with interest as per the ratio fixed by the Tribunal, which has been affirmed by this Court.

¶169

¶170

The amount in deposit before this Court at the behest of the insurer in MFA Nos.313/2014, 314/2015 and 315/2015 shall be transferred to the Tribunal for necessary orders.

¶171

Sd/JUDGE

¶172

Sd/JUDGE

¶173

sma

Lokesh B R v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokesh B R 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

Roy Rodrigues Vs the Government of Karnataka

Harshavardhana R Vs the Managing Director

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Shivam K

Smt Anjanadevi Vs the Deputy Commissioner

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Nagaraja a

Nagaraja a Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.