The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Smt Dhanalakshmi D N @ Swathi

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2022MFA/529/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the Tribunal's award in a motor accident claim, enhancing compensation for loss of future earnings and adding amounts for amenities and laid-up period. It held the insurer must pay the claimant directly first before recovering funds from the bus owner despite route deviation.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.5,91,630/- including additional amounts for amenities and laid-up period; increased by Rs.1,33,580/- with 6% interest; order to pay and recovery directed against bus owner.

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No.529 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1108 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.529 OF 2018 C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1108 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶8

IN MFA 529 OF 2018

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL

¶11

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. DHANALAKSHMI D N @ SWATHI D/O NARASIMHAIAH D.C., AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT HIREHALLI, DANDANAYAKANA PURA, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 104.

¶16

MR. YUVARAJ N S/O NANJAPPA, SRI SHIVAGANGA TRAVELS SHIVA GANESH NO.54, MIG,

¶17

¶18

MFA No.529 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1108 of 2018

¶19

2ND KHB EXTENSION, SIRAGATE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101.

¶20

MR. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O BORE GOWDA, PROPRIETOR SRI SIDDESHWARA MOTORS SIDDHANAKATTE RAMANAHALLI POST, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 201.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. P. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. GOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. H.B. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶23

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.4487/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & XIX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-23), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,58,050/WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN TRIBUNAL.

¶24

IN MFA 1108 OF 2018

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SMT. DHANALAKSHMI D N @ SWATHI D/O NARASIMHAIAH D.C. AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/A HIREHALLI, DADANAYAKANAPURA, TUMKUR DISTRICT. PIN-572 104.

¶27

(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR P., ADVOCATE)

¶28

…APPELLANT

¶29

¶30

MFA No.529 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1108 of 2018

¶31

AND:

¶32

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, 5TH FLOOR CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 REP BY ITS MANAGER

¶33

SRI YUVARAJ .N S/O NANJAPPA SRI SHIVAGANGA TRAVELS NO.54, MIG, 2ND KHB EXTENSION, SIRA GATE TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101.

¶34

SRI KRISHNA MURTHY S/O BORE GOWDA PROP.SRI SIDDESHWARA MOTORS, SIDDHANAKATTE RAMANAHALLI POST CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 217.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. GOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. H.B. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶37

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.4487/2016 ON THE FILE OF XXI ADDITIONAL SCJ & XIX ACMM MEMBER-MACT BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶38

THESE MFA’s COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

¶40

MFA No.529 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1108 of 2018

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

MFA.No.529/2018 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 18.11.2017 in MVC.No.4487/2016 passed by XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-23), questioning the liability fastened on the Insurance Company.

¶43

MFA.No.1108/2018 is filed by the claimant

¶44

challenging the judgment and award dated 18.11.2017 in MVC.No.4487/2016 passed by XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-23), for seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶45

Brief facts of the case are that, on 09.06.2016

¶46

at about 2.45 pm., on Tumkur-Bengaluru NH-4 road, Tippagondanahalli, Opp. Siddarth Medical College, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, the driver of bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-D-5715 belong to 2^nd and 3^rd

¶47

¶48

MFA No.529 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1108 of 2018

¶49

respondents insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., driven it rashly and negligently in a high speed. As a result of which, the right side tyre of the bus

¶50

was bursted. Therefore, the mudguard seat hit to the legs of the claimant, who was sitting on the seat near to the right tyre inside the bus. Hence, sustained injuries and filed claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act.

¶51

Heard the arguments from both sides and

¶52

perused the records.

¶53

The Tribunal has awarded the compensation

¶54

under various heads as follows:

¶55

1	Pain and sufferings including mental agony	Rs.	40,000/-
2	Loss of her future earnings	Rs.	2,93,760/-
3	Medical expenses	Rs.	99,290/-
4	Conveyance, nourishment and nutritious food	Rs.	25,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs.	4,58,050/-

¶56

¶57

MFA No.529 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1108 of 2018

¶58

From the medical evidence coupled with the evidence of doctor, it is proved that the claimant has suffered injuries i.e., grade II compound comminuted

¶59

fracture left 1/3^rd tibia with extension tendon injury and fracture 4^th metatarsal right foot. The above stated injuries are grievous in nature. The compensation granted under the head injury, pain and suffering is found to be correct, which needs no interference. Hence, it is kept in tact.

¶60

The compensation awarded under the head

¶61

medical expenses is as per the actual bills produced, which needs no interference. Hence, it is kept in tact.

¶62

The claimant was working as a typist and has suffered the above stated injuries. The doctor has assessed the disability at 55% to the left lower limb and 18% to the whole body. The Tribunal has taken the disability at 18%, which is found to be correct, but has committed error in taking lesser notional income.

¶63

¶64

MFA No.529 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1108 of 2018

¶65

Considering the year of accident as 2016, notional income

¶66

at Rs.9,500/- is to be taken into consideration as per the Notional Income Chart recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority. The claimant was aged 26 years, therefore, the appropriate multiplier applicable is “17”. Hence, the loss of future income due to disability is reassessed and quantified as follows:

¶67

Rs.9,500/- x 18% x 17 x 12=Rs.3,48,840/-

¶68

Accordingly, compensation of Rs.3,48,840/- is awarded under the head loss of future income due to disability.

¶69

The compensation awarded under the head conveyance, nourishment and nutritious food is found to be correct, which needs no interference. Hence, it is kept in tact.

¶70

The Tribunal has not granted compensation under the head loss of amenities and loss of income during

¶71

¶72

MFA No.529 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1108 of 2018

¶73

laid up period and treatment period. Due to the above said

¶74

injuries, the claimant being a woman certainly finding difficulty in performing day-to-day work, discomfort, inconvenience and mental agony. Accordingly, granted compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head loss of amenities. Further due to the accidental injuries, the claimant might have not attended for work atleast for a period of three months and that has to be compensated. Accordingly, compensation of Rs.28,500/- (Rs.9,500/pm., x 3 months) is awarded under the head loss of income during laid up period and treatment period.

¶75

The compensation awarded under other heads

¶76

is found to be correct, which needs no interference. Hence, it is kept in tact.

¶77

Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled to the compensation as follows:

¶78

¶79

MFA No.529 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1108 of 2018

¶80

1	Pain and sufferings including mental agony	Rs.	40,000/-	Kept in tact
2	Loss of her future earnings	Rs.	3,48,840/-
3	Medical expenses	Rs.	99,290/-	Kept in tact
4	Conveyance, nourishment and nutritious food	Rs.	25,000/-	Kept in tact
5	Loss of amenities	Rs.	50,000/-
6	loss of income during laid up period and treatment period (Rs.9,500/- pm., x 3 months)	Rs.	28,500/-
	TOTAL	Rs.	5,91,630/-

¶81

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,58,050/-, but the appellant/claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.5,91,630/- . Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,33,580/- (Rs.5,91,630/Rs.4,58,050/-). Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,33,580/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶82

10 -

¶83

MFA No.529 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1108 of 2018

¶84

Regarding liability :

¶85

In the present case, the accident was caused on 09.06.2016 on Tumkuru-Bengaluru NH-4 Road, Opp. Siddarth Medical College, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, but the bus was having permit to ply within the jurisdiction of Tumkur District. Even the bus had permit, but there is deviation of route as the bus plied other than the road permitted area and accident was caused. As per the evidence of RTO, the bus had permit to ply within the jurisdiction of Tumkur District, but the accident was caused in the Bangalore District. In this regard, in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company

¶86

Limited Vs. Swaran Singh And Others¹ , Pappu And Others -V- Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another²

¶87

and of this Court in the case of New India Assurance

¶88

1 (2004) 3 SCC 297

¶89

2 (2018) 3 SCC 208

¶90

11 -

¶91

MFA No.529 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1108 of 2018

¶92

Company Limited vs. Yellavva And Another³ ,

¶93

the issue regarding liability of the Insurance Company is no more res integra.

¶94

This Court in MFA.No.10136/2011 c/w MFA.No.10138/2011 DD.25.05.2022 in a similar set of facts and circumstances, it was held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. But the claimant is a third party, hence, the Insurance Company shall satisfy the claim of the claimant at the first instance and then recover it from the owner of the bus. Therefore, in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and of this Court as referred above, the issue is covered. Therefore, appeals filed by the Insurance Company and the claimant are liable to be allowed in part. It is directed to the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimant at the first instance and then recover it from the

¶95

3 2020 ACJ 2560 (HCK)

¶96

12 -

¶97

MFA No.529 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1108 of 2018

¶98

owner of the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-D-5715.

¶99

Accordingly, an order of pay and recovery is made.

¶100

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

¶101

ORDER

¶102

i) MFA.No.529/2018 filed by the Insurance Company

¶103

is allowed in part .

¶104

ii) MFA.No.1108/2018 filed by the claimant is

¶105

allowed-in-part .

¶106

iii) The impugned judgment and award dated 18.11.2017 in MVC.No.4487/2016 passed by XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-23), is modified to the extent that the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,33,580/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶107

13 -

¶108

MFA No.529 of 2018 C/W MFA No.1108 of 2018

¶109

iv) The Insurance Company is exonerated from payment of compensation, but in view of the principle of order of pay and recovery, the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation to the claimant at the first instance and then recover it from the owner of the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-D-5715.

¶110

v) Costs made easy.

¶111

vi) Draw award accordingly.

¶112

vii) Registry is directed to transmit the TCR along with copy of this order to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶113

Sd/JUDGE

¶114

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Smt Dhanalakshmi D N @ Swathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Smt Dhanalakshmi D N @ Swathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Syed Khaleelulla Vs Raiyaz

Sri Madhu Vs Puttaswamy

Naremma Vs T. S. Krishnamurthy

Mr. Gyanesh Kumar Vs Nil

S S Prasad Vs Dinesh M P

Smt Dhanalakshmi D N @ Swathi Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.