Partly allowed

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

Karnataka HC19 Oct 2022MFA/2791/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two appeals filed under Section 173(1) Motor Vehicles Act challenging compensation awards. Court enhanced compensation for two road traffic accident claimants to Rs.60,000 and Rs.1,36,000 respectively over Tribunal figures due to grievous injuries, directing insurance company to pay within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.60,000 and Rs.1,36,000; Insurance company directed to deposit amount with interest within six weeks.

J a I Victor Vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. — 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.2791 OF 2012(MV) C/W MFA No. 2792 OF 2012(MV)

¶7

IN MFA 2791/2012

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

J A I VICTOR AGED 21 YEARS S/O J JAYASEELAN R/AT NO.D.105 DOS HOUSING COLONY JEEVANBHEEMANAGAR BANGALORE 75.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI.SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., STRATEGIC BUSINESS UNIT KSCMF BUILDING 3^RD FLOOR,3RD BLOCK CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE BY ITS MANAGER.

¶14

2 . GOPALAKRISHNA S/O HANUMAPPA

¶15

¶16

MAJOR R/AT NO.1010 BILESHIVALE, BANGALORE 49.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.D VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:01.07.2014)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16.09.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.68/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

IN MFA 2792/2012

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

J JAYASEELAN S/O L.S.PILLAI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.D.105 DOS HOUSING COLONY JEEVANBHEEMANAGAR BANGALORE-75.

¶23

...APPELLANT

¶24

(BY SRI.SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADV.)

¶25

AND:

¶26

1 . IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., STRATEGIC BUSINESS UNIT KSCMF BUILDING 3^RD FLOOR,3RD BLOCK CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE BY ITS MANAGER.

¶27

¶28

2 . GOPALAKRISHNA S/O HANUMAPPA MAJOR R/AT NO.1010 BILESHIVALE, BANGALORE 49.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI.D VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:01.07.2014)

¶31

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16.09.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.69/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶32

THESE MFAS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

MFA Nos.2791/2012 and 2792/2012 have been

¶35

filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.09.2011 passed by the XIX Additional SCJ & MACT, Bengaluru in MVC Nos.68/2010 and 69/2010, respectively.

¶36

¶37

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals

¶38

briefly stated are that on 04.08.2009 at about 06.15 a.m., when the claimant - J. A. I. Victor in MVC No.68/2010 and claimant - J. Jayasheelan in MVC No.69/2010 were traveling in a Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-MT-3555. When they reached near Srivilliputtur main road, near Krishnan Kovil, V.P.M. College, Vadivel Thotam, the said driver drove

¶39

the same in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the road side tamarind tree and the vehicle was turtled. As a result of the aforesaid accident, both claimants sustained grievous injuries and were hospitalized.

¶40

The claimants filed separate claim petition

¶41

under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that they spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further

¶42

¶43

pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶44

On service of notice, the respondent No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. The age, avocation and income of the claimants and the medical expenses are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶45

The respondent No.2 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-parte.

¶46

¶47

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶48

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

¶49

recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 in MVC No.68/2010 and the claimant himself was examined as PW-2 in MVC No.69/2010 and Dr. Suresh Babu was examined as PW-4 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P22. On behalf of the respondents, neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of 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 in MVC No.68/2010 is entitled to a compensation of Rs.35,000/- and the claimant in MVC No.69/2010 is entitled to a compensation of Rs.76,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the

¶50

¶51

Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed.

¶52

IN MFA NO.2791/2012 (MVC NO.68/2010)

¶53

The learned counsel for the claimant has

¶54

contended that due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries. He was inpatient in the hospital for a period of four days. He has spent more than Rs.18,000/- for medical expenses. He has suffered lot of pain during the treatment. The compensation of Rs.35,000/- granted by the Tribunal is on lower side. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶55

On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶56

the Insurance Company has contended that the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. He was inpatient in the hospital only for a period of

¶57

¶58

four days. Therefore, considering the documents available on record and considering the evidence of claimant, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶59

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

¶60

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.

¶61

Due to the accident, he has sustained grievous injuries. He was inpatient in the hospital for a period of four days. He has spent more than Rs.18,000/- for medical expenses. He has suffered lot of pain during the treatment. Therefore, considering the evidence of claimant, considering the medical bills and the injuries

¶62

¶63

suffered by the claimant, I am of the opinion that in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, another Rs.25,000/- can be awarded with interest.

¶64

IN MFA NO.2792/2012 (MVC NO.69/2010)

¶65

The learned counsel for the claimant has contended that due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries. He was inpatient in the hospital for a period of eight days. He has spent more than Rs.21,000/- for medical expenses. He has suffered lot of pain during the treatment. The compensation of Rs.76,000/- granted by the Tribunal is on lower side. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶66

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. He was inpatient in the hospital only for a period of

¶67

¶68

eight days. Therefore, considering the documents available on record and considering the evidence of claimant, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶69

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

¶70

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.

¶71

Due to the accident, he has sustained grievous injuries. He was inpatient in the hospital for a period of eight days. He has spent more than Rs.21,000/for medical expenses. He has suffered lot of pain during the treatment. Therefore, considering the evidence of claimant, considering the medical bills and

¶72

¶73

the injuries suffered by the claimant, I am of the opinion that in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, another Rs.60,000/- can be awarded with interest.

¶74

In the result, the appeals are allowed in

¶75

part . The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. The claimant in MFA No.2791/2012 (MVC No.68/2010) is entitled to a compensation of Rs.60,000/- as against Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and the claimant in MVC No.69/2010 is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,36,000/- as against Rs.76,000/- awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶76

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment

¶77

¶78

excluding interest for the compensation awarded under the head of 'future medical expenses' in

¶79

MFA No.2792/2012 in MVC No.69/2010.

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

¶81

HA/-

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J a I Victor v. Iffco Tokio 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

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

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