Partly allowed

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Prakash

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2023MFA/1102/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka heard miscellaneous first appeals regarding liability and quantum of compensation in a motor accident case. The court held the insurer liable despite a licensing discrepancy and enhanced the claimant's compensation to Rs. 1,35,000 while modifying the interest rate to 6%.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,35,000 with interest at 6% per annum; insurer directed to deposit within eight weeks.

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Prakash — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 1102 of 2018 C/W MFA NO.6573/2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1102 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶7

C/W

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6573 OF 2018 (MV-I) IN MFA NO.1102/2018

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR NO.28, CENTENARY BULDING M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

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

¶13

(BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

PRAKASH S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A GODUR VILLAGE MALARAWADI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

¶16

SHRI NAGARAJU C.S S/O SIDDIAH C.S. CHIKKABBAL VILLAGE,

¶17

¶18

MFA No. 1102 of 2018 C/W MFA NO.6573/2018

¶19

HEROHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶20

3 SRIKANTH B N 951, 27TH A MAIN ROAD 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560011.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. GIRIMALLAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R3-SERVEDUNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.3928/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.99,510/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

¶24

IN MFA NO.6573/2018

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SHRI. PRAKASH S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT GODUR VILLAGE, MARALAVADI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571511.

¶27

…APPELLANT

¶28

(BY SRI. GIRIMALLAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE,

¶31

3 - MFA No. 1102 of 2018 C/W MFA NO.6573/2018

¶32

EAST WING 5TH FLOOR, 28, CENTENERY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶33

SHRI NAGARAJU C S S/O SIDDAIAH C S, CHIKKBBAL VILLAGE, HAROHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571511.

¶34

SRIKANTH B N

¶35

(AGE AND FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANT) NO.951, 27TH A MAIN ROAD, 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. B.V. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3-SERVED)

¶38

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.3928/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 7TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE & 32ND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶39

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

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

These appeals are filed under Section-173(1) of the

¶42

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV

¶43

¶44

MFA No. 1102 of 2018 C/W MFA NO.6573/2018

¶45

Act’ for brevity), calling in question the judgment and award dated 05.08.2017, passed in M.V.C.No.3928/2016, on the file of the VII Additional Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & XXXII, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity).

¶46

MFA No.1102/2018 is filed by the insurance company questioning the liability, as well as the quantum of compensation awarded.

¶47

MFA 6573/2018 is filed by the claimant for seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶48

Brief facts:

¶49

On 20.10.2014, at about 1.30 p.m., the

¶50

claimant was going on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-42-J-4906, on Harohalli-Kanakapura Main Road, in front of Pandurangaswamy Temple, Kanakapura town at

¶51

¶52

MFA No. 1102 of 2018 C/W MFA NO.6573/2018

¶53

that time one Tata Sumo bearing No.KA-05-C-2134, came in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant’s motor cycle. Due to the said impact, the claimant was thrown on the road and sustained severe injuries to his left hand and left leg.

¶54

Hence, a claim petition was filed by the claimant under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered in the accident. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs.99,510/-, along with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal held respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein, liable to pay the compensation.

¶55

Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the

¶56

parties and perused the materials on record.

¶57

¶58

MFA No. 1102 of 2018 C/W MFA NO.6573/2018

¶59

REGARDING LIABILITY:

¶60

In the present case, the offending vehicle Tata

¶61

Sumo bearing No.KA-05-C-2134, which is a Light Motor Vehicle (Transport). The Driver was holding a driving license to drive LMV (Non-Transport), as per Exhibit-R2. On this ground, the insurance company had filed an appeal seeking to exoneration of the liability. The issue involved is no longer res-integra. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED¹ , the driver who is holding a driving license to drive LMV (NonTransport) is also competent to drive LMV (Transport). Just because there is no endorsement in the Driving License of Transport that cannot be said that the Driver is incompetent to drive LMV (Transport). Therefore, as per the principle of law laid down in the above stated case, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.

¶62

1 (2017) 14 SCC 663

¶63

¶64

MFA No. 1102 of 2018 C/W MFA NO.6573/2018

¶65

REGARDING QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION:

¶66

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

¶67

as follows:

¶68

Pain and Suffering	:	Rs.	30,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period	:	Rs.	13,000/-
Medical bills	:	Rs.	9,070/-
Loss of Future Earning	:	Rs.	37,440/-
Loss of Amenities, conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges etc.	:	Rs.	10,000/-
TOTAL	:	Rs.	99,510/-

¶69

As per the Wound Certificate at Exhibit-P6,

¶70

Discharge Summary at Exhibit-P8, and the documentary evidence, it is proved that the claimant had suffered the following injuries:

¶71

“Tenderness over left shoulder,

¶72

Terminal restriction of movements of left shoulder by 10% in all directions when compared to the right side movements are painful terminally,

¶73

¶74

MFA No. 1102 of 2018 C/W MFA NO.6573/2018

¶75

Loss of strength of left shoulder muscles by 20% when compared to the right side, X-ray shows midly mal-united fracture of left greater tuberosity of humerus, United fracture of left distal phalanx of 5^th raw of foot.”

¶76

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal

¶77

under the head ‘Pain and Sufferings at Rs.30,000/- is appropriate and hence kept intact.

¶78

The claimant was aged 34 years and the

¶79

accident has occurred during the year 2014. The claimant was working as Cook. The Tribunal has held the income of the claimant at Rs.6,500/- per month, which is on lesser side. Therefore, as per Chart of notional income recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, a sum of Rs.8,500/- is to be taken as notional monthly income of the claimant. The Doctor has assessed 3.22% permanent physical disability to the whole-body. The criteria for calculating functional disability is

¶80

¶81

MFA No. 1102 of 2018 C/W MFA NO.6573/2018

¶82

elaborately discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

¶83

case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another² . Therefore, considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra, 3% functional disability to the whole-body as assessed by the Doctor is taken. The appropriate multiplier applicable as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma & Others. Vs. Delhi Transport Corpn And Another³ is ‘16’. Therefore, the compensation under the head ‘Loss of Earning Capacity Due to Disability’ is recalculated and quantified as follows:

¶84

Rs.8,500 x 3% x 16 x 12 = Rs.48,960/-

¶85

The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal under the ‘ Medical Expenses’ at Rs.9,070/- is

¶86

per actual bills and receipts and the same is kept intact.

¶87

2 (2011) 1 SCC 343

¶88

3 AIR 2009 SC 3104

¶89

10 -

¶90

MFA No. 1102 of 2018 C/W MFA NO.6573/2018

¶91

The Tribunal has awarded compensation

¶92

towards ‘ Loss Of Amenities, Food, Nourishment, Conveyance and Attendant Charges’ at Rs.10,000/-,

¶93

which is on lower side and hence a sum of Rs.30,000/- is

¶94

awarded under the said head.

¶95

In view of the accidental injuries, the claimant would have taken rest for atleast for a period of TWO months. Therefore, by taking income at Rs.8,500/- per month and calculating the laid up period for TWO months, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.17,000/(Rs.8,500 x 2 months) , under the head ‘Loss Of

¶96

Earning During Laid Up Period’ .

¶97

Therefore, in modification of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:

¶98

11 -

¶99

MFA No. 1102 of 2018 C/W MFA NO.6573/2018

¶100

Pain and Suffering	:	Rs.	30,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period (8500 x 2 months)	:	Rs.	17,000/-
Medical bills	:	Rs.	9,070/-
Loss of Future Earning	:	Rs.	48,960/-
(Rs.8500 x 3% x 16 x 12)
Loss of Amenities, conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges etc.	:	Rs.	30,000/-
TOTAL	:	Rs.	1,35,000/-

¶101

REGARDING INTEREST :

¶102

The Tribunal has awarded interest at 8% per annum, but the same is scaled down to 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Therefore, to this extent, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be allowed.

¶103

Therefore, the appellant-claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- as against Rs.99,510/-. The appellant – claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.35,490/(Rs.1,35,000 –

¶104

12 -

¶105

MFA No. 1102 of 2018 C/W MFA NO.6573/2018

¶106

Rs.99,510) along with interest at 6% per annum from the

¶107

date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of total compensation within Eight Weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

¶108

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶109

ORDER

¶110

i. MFA No.1102/2018 filed by the insurance company is allowed in part .

¶111

ii. MFA No.6573/2018 filed by the claimant is allowed in part .

¶112

iii. The impugned judgment and award dated 05.08.2017, passed in M.V.C.No.3928/2016, on the file of the VII Additional Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & XXXII, Court of

¶113

13 -

¶114

MFA No. 1102 of 2018 C/W MFA NO.6573/2018

¶115

Small Causes, Bengaluru 20.02.2018, is modified to the aforesaid extent.

¶116

iv. The appellant – claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.35,490/(Rs.1,35,000 – Rs.99,510) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. However, the appellant-claimant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 256 days, in filing the appeal.

¶117

v. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of total compensation within Eight Weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

¶118

vi. The amount in deposit be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶119

14 -

¶120

MFA No. 1102 of 2018 C/W MFA NO.6573/2018

¶121

vii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶122

viii. No order as to costs.

¶123

ix. Draw award accordingly.

¶124

Sd/JUDGE

¶125

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Prakash

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

Nooruddien Vs B Datta Kumar

Smt. Shabana Vs B Datta Kumar

Lokesh C Vs Master Tharun

Nagaraj Vs Smt Manjula

Karthikeya K Vs Karnataka State Road Transport

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kum Swetha D L