Partly allowed

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Shri N Ramachandra

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2022MFA/4398/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, in this motor accident first appeals, allowed the appeal in part. While upholding the 30% contributory negligence apportionment, the court reduced the total compensation because loss of amenities subsumes loss of life expectancy. The final award was lowered to Rs. 8,15,360 reflecting adjusted future income calculations. The insurer is directed to pay the modified amoun

What did the court decide?

The compensation awarded by the Trial Court was modified, reducing the total amount to Rs. 8,15,360/- with interest from the date of petition till deposit.

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Shri N Ramachandra — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

M.F.A.NO.4398/2014 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.3, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, MOTOR TP CLAIMS HUB (APPEALS), THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, NO.9, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. ...APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI C.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE )

¶9

AND:

¶10

SHRI N. RAMACHANDRA, S/O LATE P. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, NO.1427/10, MANARAYANAPALYA, R T NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 032.

¶11

SHRI M. RAJENDRAPRASAD, MAJOR, S/O SHRI A.A. RAO, NO.920/2, ‘B’ BLOCK, NEAR CORPORATION BANK SAHAKARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 022. ...RESPONDENTS

¶12

(R1 IS SERVED,

¶13

VIDE ORDER DATED 06.08.2019, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶14

¶15

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.05.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.7191/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,68,000/- WITH INTEREST.

¶16

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Though respondent No.1 has been served with notice, not represented.

¶19

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 22.05.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.7191/2010, on the file of the XVI Additional Judge, Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶20

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before

¶21

the Tribunal is that on 12.05.2007 when he was going towards Kenchanahalli Village on Bengaluru-Doddaballapura road from his residence by riding Kinetic Honda, at that time, the rider of the Hero Honda motorcycle came in a rash and negligent manner from wrong side of the road and dashed against him. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. He was an inpatient for around three months on different occasions thrice. The doctor assessed the disability of 30% and the same has been

¶22

¶23

taken by the Tribunal and awarded compensation of Rs.8,68,000/- apportioning the liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of 70% and 30% on the claimant. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

¶24

The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal ought to have taken 50% negligence since involvement of two vehicles is not in dispute. The learned counsel submits that the income of Rs.5,000/- was taken and the accident is of the year 2007 and hence higher compensation is awarded.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant

¶26

and taking note of the spot mahazar Ex.P.3, width of the road is 25 feet and rider of the offending vehicle came in the same direction and dashed against him. Having considered the negligence on the part of the claimant, the Tribunal rightly apportioned contributory negligence to the extent of 30% on the claimant. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal while apportioning the contributory negligence to the extent of 30% and there is no material to come to 50% negligence on the claimant.

¶27

¶28

The other contention of the Insurance Company is that the compensation awarded is on the higher side. On perusal of the material on record, the Tribunal has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards food and diet and an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards conveyance and hence it does not require any interference of this Court.

¶29

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/-

¶30

towards loss of life expectancy and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities. Once the compensation is awarded under the head loss of amenities, awarding of compensation under the head loss of life expectancy does not arise. Hence, it requires to set aside the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded under the head loss of life expectancy.

¶31

An amount of Rs.8,64,000/- is awarded towards medical bills and the same is based on documentary evidence and hence it does not require interference of this Court.

¶32

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head pain and suffering and the same does not require interference of this Court.

¶33

¶34

The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that the Tribunal has taken the income of Rs.5,000/- per month taking note of the disability will definitely affect the income from agriculture. In order to take the income of Rs.5,000/- per month, the Tribunal has given the reason that in the absence of corroboration regarding his income, it is appropriate to take the income of Rs.5,000/- per month. It is also the claim of the claimant that he was an agriculturist. When such being the case, taking the income of Rs.5,000/- per month is on the higher side. Having taken the income of Rs.4,000/- per month as the accident is of the year 2007, the loss of future income comes to Rs.1,00,800/- (Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 7 x 30%) as against Rs.1,26,000/-.

¶35

In all, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.11,64,800/-. As the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant is taken at 30%, after deducting 30%, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.8,15,360/- as against Rs.8,68,000/-.

¶36

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶37

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶40

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 22.05.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.7191/2010, is modified reducing the compensation amount to Rs.8,15,360/- from Rs.8,68,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶41

(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount with interest within six weeks from today.

¶42

(iv) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶43

(v) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Shri N Ramachandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Shri N Ramachandra

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

Sri. Jayappa Vs Sri. Jayappa. B

Sri Shanthakumar B J Vs the Divisional Manager

Mrs Avamma Vs Sri. Iqbal

The Reliance General Ins. Co.Ltd, Vs Raju

The Regional Manager Vs Master Tharun C Gowda

Nataraju P G Vs State of Karnataka