Partly allowed

Smt. Radhamani K a v. the National Insurance Company Limited

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2022MFA.CROB/36/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment expresses allowance of appeal and cross objection against a Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal award. The High Court enhanced the compensation payable to the claimant from approximately 4.28 lakh to 4.54 lakh by modifying heads for medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and adding future medical expenses, rejecting claims of contributory negligence.

What did the court decide?

Appeal and cross-objection allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs. 4,54,303 payable by the Insurance Company with interest.

Smt. Radhamani K a Vs the National Insurance Company Limited — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

M.F.A.NO.2258/2016 (MV-I) C/W. M.F.A. CROB NO.36/2020

¶7

IN M.F.A.NO.2258/2016:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MARATHAHALLI DIVISIONAL OFFICE-XI, NO.86/80, 2^ND FLOOR, MARATHAHALLI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 037.

¶10

REP. BY THE MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-1 … APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . SMT. RADHAMANI K.A., W/O. SRI SHIVASHANKARAN NAIR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.211, NANJUNDESHWARA NILAYA 8^TH CROSS, 3^RD BLOCK, VISWAPRIYA LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 068.

¶14

¶15

2 . SRI RAVIKUMAR.K S/O. KESHAVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.143, 2^ND CROSS H. KRISHAN REDDY BUILDING, NEAR KAVERAPPA BUILDING, MARATHAHALLI BENGALURU-560 037 … RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI B.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI NARAYAN PERDALKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 06.03.2018, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶17

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.01.16 PASSED IN MVC NO.6263/13 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,23,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶18

IN M.F.A. CROB NO.36/2020:

¶19

BETWEEN:

¶20

SMT. RADHAMANI K.A., W/O. SRI SHIVASHANKARAN NAIR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.211 NANJUNDESHWARA NILAYA 8^TH CROSS, 3^RD BLOCK, VISWAPRIYA LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 068.

¶21

PREVIOUS ADDRESS: NO.12-2, BOMMANAHALLI BENGALURU SOUTH.

¶22

… CROB-OBJECTOR

¶23

(BY SRI B.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI C.SREEKANTAN NAIR, ADVOCATE)

¶24

¶25

AND:

¶26

1 . THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED MARATHALLI DIVISIONAL OFFICE-XI, NO.86/80, 2^ND FLOOR, MARATHALLI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 037.

¶27

2 . SRI RAVIKUMAR.K S/O. KESHAVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.143, 2^ND CROSS H.KRISHAN REDDY BUILDING, NEAR KAVERAPPA BUILDING, MARATHALLI BENGALURU-560 037. … RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 04.02.2021, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶29

THIS M.F.A CROB IN M.F.A.NO.2258/2016 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 43 RULE 22 OF CPC R/W. SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO. 6263/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM, BENGALURU (SCCH-13), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶30

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

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, cross-objector

¶33

and learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶34

¶35

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 29.01.2016 passed in M.V.C.No.6263/2013 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, SCCH13 (‘the Tribunal’ for short) questioning the quantum of compensation and also negligence.

¶36

The parties are referred to as per their original

¶37

rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

¶38

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that she met with an accident on 04.05.2013 and in the said accident, she suffered fracture of tibia/fibula of left leg, dislocated right knee, fracture of left clavicle, T5 transverse process fracture, fracture of mandible, fracture of pelvis, right 3^rd cranial nerve palsy, hemorrhage in left superior cerebellar peduncle and abdamal injuries. The claimant, in support of her claim, not examined the Doctor before the Tribunal. The Tribunal taking note of the material available on record, not awarded any compensation on the head of future loss of income and taking note of salary certificate and pay slips which are marked as

¶39

¶40

Exs.P7 and P8, awarded compensation of Rs.5,419/- towards loss of income for a period of 23 days and the material also discloses that the claimant was working in the Garments.

¶41

The Tribunal awarded Rs.80,000/- towards injury, pain and suffering, Rs.3,09,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.14,000/- towards conveyance, nourishment, food and attendant charges. In all, awarded compensation of Rs.4,28,419/-.

¶42

The main contention of the appellant-Insurance Company in the appeal is that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding compensation of Rs.3,09,000/- towards medical expenses. It is his contention that the appellant-Insurance Company has secured the material before the Tribunal for having reimbursed the amount in view of medi-claim policy in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and other inpatient bills are also paid by the Insurance Company based on the medi-claim and inspite of it, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,09,000/- towards medical expenses.

¶43

¶44

The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that, in Para No.19, the Tribunal considering the medical bills, comes to the conclusion that P.W.1 also admitted that entire medical bills of Sparsh Hospital was paid, except non-medical bills amounting to Rs.69,130/-. Further, the Tribunal also taken note of the amount of Rs.1,45,754/- referred in Sl.Nos.1, 4, 5 to 8, 10 to 14, 18, 19, 24, 26, 28 to 30, 34. 36, 38 to 40, 53 to 56, 63 to 65 and 70 to 75. Even though the same are considered, it comes to Rs.2,14,884/- (69,130+1,45,754). However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,09,000/- towards medical bills without any basis. Hence, there is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that excess amount was awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, a sum of Rs.2,14,884/- is awarded towards medical bills.

¶45

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would also contend that there is contributory negligence on the part of the injured and she was crossing the road. No doubt, the Insurance Company also examined three witnesses as R.Ws.1 to 3 and the documents at Exs.R1 to 6 are marked, in order to

¶46

¶47

arrive at a conclusion that there is negligence on the part of the claimant also, nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1. Hence, the question of considering the contributory negligence does not arise.

¶48

Learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the compensation of Rs.80,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering is very meager and she was inpatient for a period of 14 days. Apart from that, she has suffered several fractures and the same is evident from wound certificate i.e., fracture of tibia/fibula of left leg, dislocated right knee, fracture of left clavicle, T5 transverse process fracture, fracture of mandible, fracture of pelvis, right 3^rd cranial nerve palsy, hemorrhage in left superior cerebellar peduncle and abdamal injuries. Hence, having considered the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, it is appropriate to award Rs.1,00,000/- on the head of pain and suffering as against Rs.80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶49

The Tribunal has not considered future loss of income and taking note of salary certificate and pay slips,

¶50

¶51

awarded Rs.5,419/- towards loss of earning during medical treatment and it does not require any interference.

¶52

The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- on the head of loss of amenities. No doubt, the claimant has not examined the Doctor, however taking note of the material available on record, the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, it is appropriate to award Rs.1,00,000/- on the head of loss of amenities.

¶53

The Tribunal awarded Rs.14,000/towards

¶54

conveyance, nourishment, food and attendant charges and the same does not require any interference.

¶55

However, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on the head of future medical expenses. Hence, it is appropriate to award Rs.20,000/- on the head of future medical expenses considering the nature of injuries. Hence, in all, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,54,303/- as against Rs.4,28,419/-.

¶56

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

¶57

¶58

ORDER

¶59

(i) Both the appeal and the cross objection are allowed in part.

¶60

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 29.01.2016 passed in M.V.C.No.6263/2013 is modified granting compensation of Rs.4,54,303/- as against Rs.4,28,419/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶61

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

¶62

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

¶63

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

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

Smt. Radhamani K a v. the National Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Radhamani K a v. the National Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Krishnegowda Vs M/S Royal Sundaram Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Challappaji Vs Govinda Raju M

Regional Manager Vs Geetha

Sri Mariyanna @ Mariyappa Vs M/S Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri Bevina Guddaiah Vs the Divisional Manager

M/S. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vs Laxmamma