In motor accident injury appeal cases involving National Insurance Co. Ltd. and a pillion rider, the High Court modified the Tribunal's award, enhancing compensation amount and reducing the interest rate.
Compensation enhanced to Rs. 7,23,000; interest rate reduced to 6% p.a.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
MFA NO.8902/2017(MV-I) C/W MFA NO.3102/2017(MV-I)
IN MFA NO.8902/2017:
BETWEEN :
JAGADEESHA S/O KULLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT PERMANENT ADDRESS PATHIGATA VILLAGE AT POST HIRISAVE HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT PRESENT ADDRESS: NO.244, JNANAJYOTHINAGAR 6TH MAIN ROAD, JNANABHARATHI POST MALLATHAHALLI BENGALURU-560 056 (BY SRI. HALESHA R.G., ADVOCATE)
... APPELLANT
AND:
2
(BY SRI. B. ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.3116/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-18), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.3102/2017:
BETWEEN :
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, #144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER SMT. REKHA S. MENON
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
3
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT PRESENT ADDRESS: NO.244, JNANAJYOTHINAGAR 6TH MAIN ROAD JNANABHARATHI POST, MALLATHAHALLI BENGALURU-560 056
2.SRI. H.P. MANJEGOWDA, MAJOR IN AGE S/O PUTTAHANUME GOWDA RESIDENT OF M. HOSUR, MATHIGATTA POST CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT (OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO.13/Q-1469) ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. HALESHA R.G., ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.3116/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH18), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.7,12,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 12.09.2022 COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
JUDGMENT
MFA No.8902/2017 is filed by
petitioner/claimant, while MFA No.3102/2017 is filed by Respondent No.2-M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Tribunal’) challenging the judgment and award dated 09.01.2017 passed by the III additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) in MVC No.3116/2015.
Raghu was riding the said vehicle in a slow and cautious manner initially, but when they reached
5
near Rangenahalli Gate, the rider of the said motor cycle rode the same in rash and manner and lost control over the vehicle, as such the rider and pillion rider fell on the road along with motor bike and sustained simple as well as grievous injuries. Then the public gathered at the spot have shifted the injured petitioner/claimant to Adichunchanagiri Hospital at Balagangadharanagar, wherein he has taken treatment as inpatient and underwent surgery. According to the claimant, he has spent more than Rs.06.00 Lakhs towards medical expenses and other incidental charges. It is the claim of the petitioner/claimant that he was working as an agriculturist and was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., prior to the accident and he is permanently disabled because of accidental injuries. Hence, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/with interest thereon.
6
He also contended that the petition itself is not maintainable and the involvement of the motor cycle in the alleged accident itself is disputed. He would also contend that there was delay of four days in lodging complaint and considering these facts, the involvement of the vehicle itself is doubtful aspect and the admission to the hospital was two days after the date of accident. Hence, Respondent No.2 has denied the entire claim including age, occupation and income of the petitioner/claimant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
7
Rs.7,12,000/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition, till deposit by fastening liability on Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally and primary liability was fastened on Respondent No.2/insurer.
judgment and award, the Insurance Company has filed MFA No.3102/2017 challenging quantum as well as liability, while the petitioner/claimant has filed MFA No.8902/2017 seeking for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/Insurer. Perused the records.
appellant/Insurance Company would contend that the 1st respondent is the native of Pathigatta Village in Hassan District. The accident in question has occurred
8
within the limits of Hassan Police Station, but, the claim petition is filed before the Court at Bengaluru. It is also contended that, though the alleged accident has occurred on 17.03.2015 at 9.00. a.m, but the wound certificate discloses that, he was treated at 4.00 p.m. on 19.03.2015 and no previous medical records are forthcoming. It is further contended that, the Insurer is not liable to pay any compensation, as the MLC report discloses the cause of accident as, ‘Fall from bike on his own’. It is further alleged that, a false complaint has been lodged by implicating the offending motor cycle by showing PW.3 as rider thereof. He would also contend that, reading of the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3 & 4 together would show that, it is a clear case of misrepresentation to fix the motor cycle. He would also contend that the Tribunal has ignored the medical records from 17.03.2015 from 9.00 a.m. till 19.03.2015 4.00 p.m. He would also contend that, Ex.P5 discloses that the injured was first treated in the hospital on 19.05.2015 at 4.00
9
p.m.. and there is no evidence to show, as to whether
the claimant was admitted in the hospital from 17.03.2015 9.00 a.m. to 19.03.2015 till 4.00 p.m. He would also contend that the injuries as asserted by the petitioner/claimant and medical evidence does not tally with each other. He has also invited the attention of the Court to the cross-examination of PW.1, wherein he claims that, there are no fractures, but the medical evidence speaks different things. He would also contend that, all the witnesses have specifically asserted that the petitioner/claimant was shifted to Adichunchanagiri Hospital. But, the records disclose that he was shifted to the said hospital only after two days. There is no explanation as to what is the purpose of not filing the petition within the jurisdiction of Hassan and as to why the claim petition is filed in Bengaluru. It is also contended that there is no attempt made to explain the delay and he would also contend that, there is a fraud played on the Court. Hence he would contend that the Tribunal is
10
not justified in awarding compensation by fixing liability on Respondent No.2/Insurance Company, and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
respondent/petitioner claimant in MFA No.3102/2017 respondent would support the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal so far as it relates to the aspect of liability is concerned. He would contend that Ex.P17 is the hospital document, which discloses that he was admitted to the hospital on 17.03.2015 and the when the Doctor was examined before the Tribunal, then no questions were posed to him to elicit answers, but such questions are now being raised in the appellate stage. He would further contend that, inpatient records clearly disclose that he was admitted on 17.03.2015 with the history of Road Traffic Accident and merely on the ground of delay, he cannot be victimized. He would also contend that, admittedly he suffered head injury and as such, it was the duty of the concerned Doctor to intimate about
11
the MLC to the nearest police station. He would also contend that the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.7,000/- p.m., which is on lower side and considering the accident, and as per the Lok-Adalat Chart minimum income ought to have been taken at Rs.9,000/-. Further, he would contend that no compensation was awarded under the head of Loss of Amenities and under other heads also, the compensation awarded was on lower side. Hence, he would contend that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company to be dismissed and prays to allow his appeal by enhancing compensation.
the records, it is evident that, there is no serious dispute regarding the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner/claimant. Further, it is also evident that he suffered injuries in the Road Traffic Accident only. But, the issue now raised is involvement of vehicle in the accident in question and the allegations
12
regarding delay. These aspects will have to be now considered.
13
pertaining to the petitioner/claimant. Ex.P16 was produced by PW.5, who is an official of Adichunchanagiri Hospital and on perusal of this document, it is evident that the petitioner was admitted on 17.03.2015 and wherein the patient’s ID number was also disclosed. Even the other records of AIMS/Sparsh Hospital at Ex.P16 at Page Nos.203, 204, 205 and 206 etc., disclose that the date of admission is on 17.03.2015 itself. But, however the dates of medical examination of patient/petitioner are different, but the date of admission of petitioner/claimant in the hospital, is consistently mentioned as on 17.03.2015. Further, the discharge summary is available at page No.222 at Ex.P16 and this document clearly discloses that the date of admission was at 17.03.2015 at 11.52 a.m. Further, discharge summary available at Page No.223 also speaks the same story. During the cross-examination of PW.5, though a simple suggestion was made to him that, these documents have been created, but, to that
14
effect, no corresponding evidence is produced by the appellant/ Insurance Company and hence, question of creation of such huge records with consultancy notes does not arise at all.
to AIMS/Sparsh Hospital clearly disclose that the petitioner/claimant was admitted in the hospital on 17.03.2015. The consultant progress notes also disclose that, they are recorded from 17.03.2015 onwards and initially he was treated there and later on admission was done. The consultant progress notes clearly show that, on 17.03.2015 at 9.45 a.m. the treatment has begun. The accident is said to have been taken place at 9.00 a.m. and without any delay, immediately he was admitted in the hospital. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that, ‘admission of
15
petitioner/claimant to Hospital was on 19.03.2015’
cannot be accepted at any stretch of imagination.
16
the petitioner/claimant on 19.03.2015, the other consultancy notes and admission records cannot be ignored and the accident register-Ex.R1 is based on those admission records. Further, the author of this document is not examined by the Respondent no.2/Insurance Company. On the contrary, Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 clearly establish that, admission of petitioner/claimant was on 17.03.2015 and again it is supported by the consultancy notes.
17
during cross-examination of PW.1, a suggestion was made that, ‘PW.3 Raghu was not riding bike, but the petitioner/claimant himself was riding bike’. This suggestion is completely contrary to the defence of the Respondent No.2/Insurance Company and the Insurance Company has never put-forward the defence that the petitioner/claimant was the rider of the motor cycle at the time of accident and on the contrary, the defence is that, the offending motor cycle was not at all involved in the accident in question and by some other vehicle and somewhere else, the petitioner/claimant has suffered injuries. The said suggestions are fatal to the case of the Insurance Company. Again subsequently, contrary suggestion was made to PW.1 that, ‘the claimant/petitioner suffered injuries somewhere else by fall and subsequently four days later, he lodged a complaint by colluding with others. ’ But, this suggestion came to be denied. Hence, it is evident
18
that the Insurance Company is also not consistent about the defence taken by it.
19
and the history given was ‘Self Fall from the Bike’ . Admittedly, the claimant/petitioner has suffered head injury. Under these circumstances, it was not necessary for the claimant to lodge a complaint or explain the delay in lodging the complaint, as it is the duty of the hospital authorities to submit MLC to the concerned Police Station. For the lapses on the part of concerned hospital authorities, the injured claimant/petitioner cannot be victimized. Apart from that, PW.1 was cross-examined and the records disclose regarding his admission to the hospital on 17.03.2015, but no questions were posed to Doctor, who was examined on behalf of the petitioner. These facts and circumstances clearly establish that PW.3Raghu was the rider of motor cycle and it met with an accident resulting in injuries to the petitioner/claimant, who was the pillion rider. Hence, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/Insurance Company holds no water. The ground of filing claim petition in
20
Bangalore, though claimant is resident of Hassan holds no water, as during relevant period, claimant was residing in Bangalore. No evidence is placed to prove the alleged fraud or fraudulent claim. Hence, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company does not survive for consideration.
Rs.7,12,000/-, under the following heads:-
| Sl. No. |
Particulars | Amount (RS.) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pain and Suffering | 80,000/- |
| 2 | Loss of Amenities | 25,000/- |
| 3 | Medical Expenses | 3,43,000/- |
| 4 | Loss of Future Income | 1,89,000/- |
| 5 | Loss of income during laid- up period and rest period |
37,000/- |
| 6 | Conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges |
38,000/- |
| Total | 7,12,000/- |
fracture of right 3rd and 4th Rib, fracture of right clavicle middle 1/3rd , right scapula fracture undisplaced and left fronto tempero partietal traumatic acute SDH. Hence, it is evident that, admittedly he
21
suffered grievous injuries. Considering these injuries, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.80,000/- under the head of Pain and Suffering, and it appears to be on higher side. Hence, considering the nature and gravity of injuries, in my considered opinion, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.50,000/- under this head.
22
No.2/Insurance Company. Further, the Tribunal has given proper reasons for considering the disability to the extent of 15%. Though the claimant has asserted regarding he being earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., but not produced any documentary evidence in this regard. In the absence of any material evidence in regard to the income of the victim/s, this Court is consistently taking the notional income pertaining to the accidents occurred in the year 2015, at Rs.9,000/- p.m. Hence, the Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the petitioner/claimant at Rs.7,000/- which is on lower side and it is to be taken at Rs.9,000/-. Having taken the income at Rs.9,000/- and also considering the age and other aspects, the Loss of Future Income would work-out to Rs.2,43,000/- (Rs.9000x12x15x15%)
23
Considering these aspects a sum of Rs.38,000/appears to be on higher side and in my considered opinion, it is just and appropriate to award a sum of Rs.25,000/ - under this head.
24
Rs.7,12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, under the
following heads:-
| Sl. | Particulars | Amount (RS.) |
|---|---|---|
| No. | ||
| 1 | Pain and Suffering | 50,000/- |
| 2 | Loss of Amenities | 25,000/- |
| 3 | Medical Expenses | 3,43,000/- |
| 4 | Loss of Future Income | 2,43,000/- |
| 5 | Loss of income during laid- up period and rest period |
37,000/- |
| 6 | Conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges |
25,000/- |
| Total | 7,23,000/- | |
| Award of Tribunal | 7,12,000/- | |
| Enhanced compensation | 11,000/- |
25
time, it is also important to note that the Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a., which appears to be on higher side, as this Court is consistently taking the prevailing rate of interest at 6% p.a., which is given in respect of Fixed Deposits in Nationalised Banks. Hence, the rate of interest requires to be reduced to 6% p.a., from 9% p.a., on the compensation amount.
ORDER
i) The appeal in MFA No.8902/2017 filed by the appellant/petitioner/claimant is allowed-in-part . The judgment and award dated 09.01.2017 Passed by III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Bengaluru, in MVC No.3116/2015 is modified.
26
from the date of petition till the date of payment.
However, the appellant/claimant is not entitled for interest on compensation for the delayed period of 212 days in filing the appeal, as per the order of this Court dated 14.02.2019.
iii) The Respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.
27
The statutory amount deposited by the appellant/Insurance Company in MFA No.3102/2017 shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/JUDGE
KGR* CT:NR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in lodging medical complaint by the claimant prejudices his claim to compensation?
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement or reduction?
Whether the rate of interest applicable to the compensation award requires modification?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Jagadeesha S/o Kullegowda
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
H.P. Manjegowda
Rajendra Badamikar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
