Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajanna S/O Siddappa

Karnataka HC19 Oct 2022MFA/2056/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal by an insurance company against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court upheld the quantum of compensation, finding it justified based on medical evidence of 10% whole body disability and the Tribunal's assessment of notional income.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Judgment and Award of the Tribunal confirmed; Deposit ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajanna S/O Siddappa — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MFA No.2056 OF 2012(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., DO-2, Kheny Building, No.3 First Floor, First Cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore, Through its Regional Office, No.44/45 Leo Shopping Complex, Residency Road, Bangalore-25 Represented by its Deputy Manager. … Appellant (By Sri.S.V. Hegde Mulkhand, Advocate)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Rajanna, S/o Siddappa, Aged about 52 years, R/o Ramapalya, Huskur Post, Dasanaspura Hobli, Bangalore.

¶11

M/s Sunchirin Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.25, New Municipal No.5, KIADB, 3^rd Main, First Phase, Peenya Indl. Area, Bangalore-560 058. ... Respondents (By Smt. Asha B.L., Advocate for Sri. G.M, Ananda and Sri. M.T. Rangaswmy, Advocates: Notice to R2 Served but unrepresented)

¶12

¶13

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated: 06.09.2011 passed in MVC No. 5604/2010 on the file of the XXI A.C.M.M. & XXIII A.S.C.J MACT Bangalore awarding Compensation of Rs.2,25,600/- (80% of Rs.2,82,000/-) with interest @ 6% P.A. excluding interest on future medical expenses, from the date of petition till deposit. This MFA, coming on for hearing, this day, this Court, delivered the following:

¶14

J U D G M E N T

¶15

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru in MVC No.5604/2016.

¶16

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 03.07.2010 at about 6.00 p.m. the claimant was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-52/E-692 as a pillion rider on Tumkur – Bangalore road. When they reached near the junction, at that time, Qualis car bearing registration No.KA-39/M-0575

¶17

¶18

being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶19

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶20

On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statements in which the averments made in the petition were denied. The age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded that the quantum of

¶21

¶22

compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶23

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and Dr.Rajashekar M. was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On behalf of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor got exhibited documents. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent riding of the claimant as well as the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,82,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit 80% of the compensation amount i.e.,

¶24

¶25

Rs.2,25,600/- along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶26

Sri Hegde Mulkhund, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following contentions:

¶27

Firstly, even though the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of 10% to whole body. The Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of the doctor and awarded compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh for disability. The same is contrary to the materials available on record.

¶28

Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are simple in nature. Considering the injuries suffered by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for 'pain and sufferings' at Rs.1,00,000/- is on the higher side.

¶29

Thirdly, considering the evidence of the doctor and the injuries suffered by the claimant the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads 'loss of amenities' and

¶30

¶31

other incidental expenses is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for reduction of compensation.

¶32

On the other hand, Smt.Asha B.L., the learned counsel appearing for the claimant has raised the following contentions:

¶33

Firstly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are grievous in nature. The doctor has deposed that the claimant has suffered 10% whole body disability.

¶34

Secondly, considering the evidence of the doctor and the materials available on record the Tribunal has awarded a just and reasonable compensation. Hence, she sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award and the original records.

¶36

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶37

¶38

The claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2 who has deposed that the claimant has suffered 33% disability to left lower limb and 10% to whole body and the Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the claimant as Rs.4,000/-.

¶39

Considering the evidence of the doctor and injuries suffered by the claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads 'pain and sufferings' , 'loss of amenities' and other heads is just and reasonable.

¶40

Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed.

¶41

The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to

¶42

the Tribunal forthwith.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Cm/-

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajanna S/O Siddappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajanna S/O Siddappa

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

Smt. Danamma Vs the Manager

N T Ranganatha Vs Gopalakrishna

Pradeep. B. v. Vs Ashwathappa

Sri Krupashankar Vs Sri Yogesh H R

M Chethan Vs the Manager

J a I Victor Vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.