Partly allowed

Sri. Kallesha N v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Karnataka HC25 Jul 2022MFA/2538/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed both appeals in part in a motor accident compensation matter. The Court enhanced the awarded compensation for the claimant based on higher disability percentage, income determination, and medical costs. The insurer was directed to pay the enhanced amount with liberty to recover from the vehicle owner.

What did the court decide?

The Insurance Company shall pay the enhanced compensation of Rs. 17,85,060/- and is entitled to recover the same from the vehicle owner.

Sri. Kallesha N Vs Reliance General Insurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 2538 of 2020

¶3

C/W MFA No. 2294 of 2020

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶8

MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO. 2538 OF 2020 (MV-I)

¶9

C/W

¶10

MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO. 2294 OF 2020

¶11

IN M.F.A. No.2538/2020

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

SRI. KALLESHA N S/O LATE NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.1461/D 7TH SECTOR HSR LAYOUT BANGALORE-560102

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SRI. THIPPESWAMY B C.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 5TH FLOOR CENTENARY BUILDING NO.28 M G ROAD, BANGALORE-01

¶18

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶19

AHASHIVARDHAN B R MAJOR S/O BALAKRISHNA V NO.47 WARD NO.191 NICE ROAD, TOLLGATE

¶20

¶21

MFA No. 2538 of 2020

¶22

C/W MFA No. 2294 of 2020

¶23

BERATENA AGRAHARA ELECTRONIC CITY BANGLAORE-560 100

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 27.06.2022 NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.2956/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶27

IN M.F.A. No.2294/2020

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR,NO.28 CENTENARY BUILDING

¶30

M G ROAD, BENGALURU – 560001. NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL.

¶31

…APPELLANT

¶32

(BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL., ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND:

¶34

KALLESHA N S/O LATE NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.1461/D, 7TH SECTOR

¶35

¶36

MFA No. 2538 of 2020

¶37

C/W MFA No. 2294 of 2020

¶38

HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560102.

¶39

SHASHIVARDHAN B R MAJOR S/O BALAKRISHNA V NO.47 WARD NO.191 NICE ROAD, TOLLGATE BERATENA AGRAHARA ELECTRONIC CITY BENGALURU-560 100.

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI.THIPPESWAMY B.C., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶42

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.2956/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,11,860/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES OF 20,000/- AWARDED FOR ANOTHER SURGERY FOR REMOVAL OF IMPLANT DOES NOT CARRY ANY INTEREST.

¶43

THESE MFA’S COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

In respect of an accident which is not in dispute, a claim

¶46

petition was filed and the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.11,11,860/- for the injuries suffered by the claimant in the following manner:

¶47

¶48

MFA No. 2538 of 2020

¶49

C/W MFA No. 2294 of 2020

¶50

1.	Loss of futureincome	2,44,800/-
2.	Painand suffering	50,000/-
3.	Medicalexpenses	7,23,060/-
4.	Loss of income duringlaid up period	24,000/-
5.	Food and nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	30,000/-
6.	Loss of future amenities	20,000/-
7.	Futuremedicalexpenses	20,000/-
	TOTAL	11,11,860/-

¶51

It is the case of the Insurer that it is not liable for paying the compensation awarded since the vehicle did not have a Fitness Certificate and that the sums awarded were also on the higher side.

¶52

It is the case of the claimant that having regard to the injuries suffered and the length of stay in the hospital the sums awarded towards pain and sufferings, food and nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges, loss of future amenities and also future medical expenses are on the lower side. It is also contended that the monthly income determined by the Tribunal is also on the lower side.

¶53

Learned counsel for the Insurer contended that as per the Division Bench ruling of this Court reported in M.F.A.No.5654/2016

¶54

¶55

MFA No. 2538 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2294 of 2020

¶56

and connected cases, in cases relating to non possessing of Fitness Certificate, the insurer has been directed to satisfy the compensation and thereafter, liberty has been granted to recover the same from the owner. In view of this ruling, the argument of the learned counsel would be sustainable only to the extent of ordering pay and recover.

¶57

As regards quantum, it is seen from the award of the Tribunal that the monthly income is determined at Rs.8,000/- in respect of an accident of the year 2018 since there was no documentary evidence. The Karnataka State Legal Services Authority has determined that the monthly income to be adopted in respect of the accident of the year 2018 should be Rs.12,500/-. Hence, the said sum of Rs.12,500/- is adopted.

¶58

The assessment of disability at 15% by the Tribunal cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that the Doctor who had treated the claimant and who works as an Orthopedic Surgeon in Sparsh Hospital has stated that the claimant has 29% disability to the whole body. In my view, in the light of the medical evidence by a treated Doctor, the Tribunal could not have reduced it by a factor

¶59

¶60

MFA No. 2538 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2294 of 2020

¶61

of 15%. The percentage of disability, is therefore, taken as 29% as

¶62

assessed by the Doctor. The applicable multiplier is 17. Consequently, claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.7,39,500/(12,500/- x 12 x 17 x 29%) towards loss of future income.

¶63

As regards the pain and sufferings, it is not in dispute that

¶64

the claimant was hospitalized for more than 19 days. In my view, having regard to the length of the stay and the surgery that the claimant had to undergo, it would be appropriate to enhance the said sum to Rs.1,00,000/-. The medical expenses determined at Rs.7,23,060/- being based on the documentary evidence is affirmed. As the loss of income is determined at Rs.12,500/-, the sum of Rs.24,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income during laid up period is increased to Rs.37,500/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards food and nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. Since the claimant was inpatient for 19 days that would have to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/- The Tribunal has assessed loss of future amenities at Rs.20,000/-. Having regard to the fact that the claimant has

¶65

¶66

MFA No. 2538 of 2020

¶67

C/W MFA No. 2294 of 2020

¶68

suffered disability at 29% to the whole body, the same ought to have been enhanced to Rs.75,000/-.

¶69

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses. The Doctor has stated that the cost of future surgery for removal of implants would be Rs.60,000/-. The sum awarded towards future medical expenses is thus required to be enhanced to Rs.60,000/-. Consequently, the claimant is entitled

¶70

to the following sums:

¶71

Sl. No.	Heads	Amount awarded by tribunal	Amount awarded by this Court
1.	Loss of futureincome	2,44,800/-	7,39,500/-
2.	Painand suffering	50,000/-	1,00,000/-
3.	Medicalexpenses	7,23,060/-	7,23,060/-
4.	Loss of income during laid up period	24,000/-	37,500/-
5.	Food and nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	30,000/-	50,000/-
6.	Loss of future amenities	20,000/-	75,000/-
7.	Futuremedicalexpenses	20,000/-	60,000/-
	TOTAL	11,11,860/-	17,85,060/-

¶72

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company

¶73

and the appeal filed by the claimant both are allowed in part.

¶74

¶75

MFA No. 2538 of 2020

¶76

C/W MFA No. 2294 of 2020

¶77

The Insurance Company shall pay the compensation and

¶78

would then be entitled to recover the said sum from the owner of the vehicle.

¶79

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the

¶80

Tribunal forthwith.

¶81

SD/JUDGE

¶82

tsn*

Sri. Kallesha N v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Kallesha N v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt v M Sumithra Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Padmanabha Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Wilson.T Vs Mrs.Vimala Rai

Sri Manjunatha Vs Ashoka

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kallesha N