Partly allowed

Reliance Gic Ltd. v. K T Manjegowda

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2022MFA/6567/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka modified the compensation awarded in two motor vehicle accident cases. It increased the total compensation from Rs.9,50,200 to Rs.11,63,600 due to future prospects and loss of amenities, while reducing the interest rate from 9% to 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.11,63,600; interest rate reduced to 6% p.a.; Insurance Company directed to deposit amount.

Reliance Gic Ltd. Vs K T Manjegowda — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MFA No.6567 OF 2018(MV) C/W MFA No. 1736 OF 2019(MV)

¶7

IN MFA 6567/2018 BETWEEN

¶8

RELIANCE GIC LTD REGISTERED OFFICE NO.19 RELIANCE CENTRE WALCHAND HIRACHANDANI MARG BALLAR ESTATE, MUMBAI NOW REP BY MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.28, SANITARY BUILDING 5^TH FLOOR, M.G.ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.PRADEEP B., ADV)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . K T MANJEGOWDA S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O YEDIYUR HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK-577 541.

¶13

¶14

2 . MAHESHGOWDA S/O SHIVEGOWDA R/AT BYLAPPANAPALYA NEAR TCI BUS STAND, M.H.4, TUMKUR BENGALURU ROAD MADAVARA, P.O. BANGALORE AND ALSO NATIVE OF SHARHALLI VILLAGE SANTHEBACHALLI HOBLI K.R.PET TALUK.-571426.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. M V MAHESHWARAPPA, ADV. FOR C/R1: NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.564/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT-15TH KUNIGAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.9,50,200/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶18

IN MFA 1736/2019 BETWEEN

¶19

SRI.K T MANJEGOWDA S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O YEDIYUR HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-577 541.

¶20

… APPELLANT

¶21

(BY SRI.M.V. MAHESHWARAPPA, ADV.)

¶22

¶23

AND

¶24

MAHESHGOWDA S/O SHIVEGOWDA R/AT BYLAPPANAPALYA NEAR TCI BUS STAND, M.H.4, TUMKUR BENGALURU ROAD MADAVARA, P.O. BANGALORE AND ALSO NATIVE OF SHARHALLI VILLAGE SANTHEBACHALLI HOBLI K.R.PET TALUK.-571426.

¶25

THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., REG., OFFICE NO.19 RELIANCE CENTER WALCHAND HIRACHANDANI

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R2: NTOICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶28

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JDUGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.564/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE AND MACTXV, KUNIGAL PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶29

¶30

THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

MFA 6567/2018 is filed by the Insurance Company and MFA 1736/2019 is filed by the claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.3.2018 passed by Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XV, Kunigal in MVC 564/2013.

¶34

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that on 27.03.2013, when the claimant was sitting in autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-09-B-256 at K.R.Pet and the driver was alighting the passengers at KR Pet, at that time, crane bearing registration No.KA-52-M-1039 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the autorickshaw. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶35

¶36

The claimant filed a petition under Section

¶37

166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶38

On service of notice, the respondents appeared through their respective counsel and only respondent No.2 filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶39

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶40

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1, Mr.Ashoka H.C., employer of the claimant was examined as PW-2 and Dr.Santhosh Kumar.S was examined as PW-3 and got exhibited

¶41

¶42

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and no documents were produced. 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 is entitled to a compensation of Rs.950,200/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed.

¶43

The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following contentions:

¶44

Firstly, the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.14,000 per month by working as mason and examined his employer as PW-2. But he has not

¶45

¶46

produced any documents, much less the bank statement to show that he was receiving Rs.14,000/p.m. as income. In the absence of proof of income, the notional monthly income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.9,000/- is on the higher side.

¶47

Secondly, PW-3, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered physical disability of 80% to lower limb, but he has not stated the disability caused to the whole body. The whole body disability assessed by the Tribunal at 40% is on the higher side. Further, the disability suffered by the claimant does not affect his earning capacity. Hence, he is not entitled for future prospects.

¶48

Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is on the higher side.

¶49

¶50

Fourthly, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal filed by

¶51

the Insurance Company by reducing the

¶52

compensation.

¶53

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant has raised following counter contentions:

¶54

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was doing mason work and earning Rs.14,000/- per month and examined his employer as PW-2, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.9,000/- per month.

¶55

Secondly, the claimant has suffered Type II B compound fracture both bone of left leg vascular and anural limb, right leg punctured wound and comminuted fracture distal radius left. PW-3, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered physical disability of 80%. But the Tribunal

¶56

¶57

has erred in taking the whole body disability at only 40%. Due to the disability, the claimant is not in a position to discharge his regular work and do his mason work and there is loss of income. There is functional disability of 100% and claimant is entitled for future prospects. But the Tribunal has failed to consider the future prospects. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ERUDHAYA PRIYA vs. STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. 2020’ SCC Online SC 601 and in the case of ‘PAPPU DEO YADAV vs. NARESH KUMAR AND OTHERS’ AIR 2020 SC 4424.

¶58

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 30 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain

¶59

¶60

during treatment. The Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation for 'loss of amenities'. Further, the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' and other heads are on the lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal filed by the claimant by enhancing the compensation.

¶61

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶62

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.

¶63

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.14,000/- per month and examined the employer as PW-3. He has not produced any supporting documents to prove his income. Therefore, the notional income has to be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the

¶64

¶65

Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2013, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m.

¶66

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained Type II B compound fracture both bone of left leg vascular and anural limb, right leg punctured wound and comminuted fracture distal radius left. PW3, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered physical disability of 80%. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor, PW-3 and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 40%. The claimant has sustained grievous injuries and he is a mason. The said disability has affected his earning capacity and there is loss of income and hence, he is entitled for future prospects. Since there is functional disability, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court

¶67

¶68

in the case of ERUDAYA PRIYA (supra) and PAPPU DEO YADAV (supra), the claimant is entitled for future prospects. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS’ AIR 2017 SC 5157, addition of 40% of the income of the claimant towards future prospects has to be considered. Hence, the monthly income of the claimant is assessed at Rs.11,200/- (Rs.8,000+40%). The claimant is aged about 38 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘15’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.8,06,400/-

¶69

(Rs.11,2001215*40%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶70

The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 4 months. Therefore, the claimant is

¶71

¶72

entitled for compensation of Rs.32,000/- (Rs.8,000*4 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶73

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more than 30 days in the hospital and thereafter, has received further treatment. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer with the disability stated by the doctor throughout his life. Considering the same, I am inclined to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of amenities'. Further, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.45,000/-.

¶74

Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶75

¶76

10. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

¶77

following compensation:

¶78

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	35,000	45,000
Medical expenses	210,000	210,000
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	30,200	30,200
Loss of income during laid up period	27,000	32,000
Loss of amenities	0	40,000
Loss of future income	648,000	806,400
Total	950,200	11,63,600

¶79

In the result, both the appeals are disposed of . The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶80

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.11,63,600/-.

¶81

In view of the Division Bench decision of this in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –vVenkateshan.V and others ( MFA 5896/2018 and

¶82

¶83

connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the interest granted by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount is reduced to 6% p.a.

¶84

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. 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.

¶85

In view of the order dated 1.6.2022 passed by this Court, the claimant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 201 days in filing the appeal.

¶86

The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶87

Sd/JUDGE

¶88

Reliance Gic Ltd. v. K T Manjegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance Gic Ltd. v. K T Manjegowda

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 Sanjeeva Poojary Vs Sri Vijaya Kharvi

Sri Pradeesh Kumar Shetty Vs Sri K R Venkatesh Bhat

Sri Punith Kumar D M Vs Sri Chandre Gowda K S

The Branch Manager Hdfc Ergo Genl Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Vithendra

Sri. K.T. Manjegowda Vs Mahesh Gowda

The Managing Director Vs Smt Kalpana