Appeal by an insurance company challenging a motor accident compensation award. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's negligence finding and quantum but reduced the interest rate from 9% to 6%.
Reduced interest rate on compensation from 9% to 6%. Respondent insurance company directed to deposit amount within eight weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1115 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
NOW AT SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 5/4, 3RD CROSS, S.V. ARCADE, BELAKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, OPP: BANNERAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, II M.B.POST, BANGALORE 560 076 BY IT'S MANAGER
…APPELLANT
Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI.O.MAHESH.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI FOR R1.,ADVOCATE) R2 SERVED AND UNREPRSENTED VIDE ORDER DATED 03.07.2018 NOTICE TO R3 IS D/W BY SRI.E.I SANMATHI FOR R4 ADVOCATE., )
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.3384/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.3,54,696/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. (ON RS.3,39,696/-) FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION AND ETC,.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company
aggrieved by the Award passed in M.V.C.No.3384/2016, on the file of the Member, Prl. M.A.C.T & Chief Judge, dated
18.11.2017, whereby the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.3,54,696/- as compensation.
compensation of an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. The case of the claimant is that on 29.04.2016, at about 10.00 P.M., the claimant was traveling in a Car on NH-150 road, a lorry came in the said road from opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car in which the petitioner i.e., claimant was traveling. In the said accident, the claimant sustained injuries and two persons died on the spot. It is the case of the claimant that he was working as a Driver and earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month. The evidence of the Doctor is that he had sustained fracture of right femur and swelling over the right thigh. He had suffered fracture of shaft of right femur and was admitted on 30.04.2016 and discharged on 31.05.2016 and he was treated by open reduction with K- nailing on 04.05.2016. As per the evidence of the Doctor,
PW.2, there is 34.3% disability of right lower limb which is about 17.15% to the whole body and he has advised the claimant to undergo another operation for removal of implants from femur. The Tribunal while on the aspect of negligence, had observed that the sketch was not filed by the claimant it is filed by the Insurance Company, the charge sheet has been filed stating that he was a driver of the lorry and as per the sketch, the width of the road is 24 feet, the lorry which came in the opposite direction of the car, went to the right side that too leaving 11.5 feet space towards the left side of the road on its direction and the car was shown to be 9 feet away from the edge of the direction. The Court observed that it makes clear that the lorry went on to the extreme right side and if at all the lorry had proceeded on its proper path without leaving 11.5 feet space on its left side, the accident would have not occurred and held that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and that as the same is insured with the respondent Insurance Company, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.
and that aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal. He submits that still there is 9 feet on the left side of the car,
which shows that he has come to the middle of the road and
had he been on the left side, the accident would have not happened. He submits that the sketch was not placed before the Court by the claimant in fact, the respondent have placed the sketch and as per the sketch, the accident had taken place in the middle of the road. It is submitted that
there is clear contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car which was not considered by the Court. It is submitted that in fact he has also examined the driver of the lorry and discharged their burden with regard to contributory negligence, without appreciating all these facts the Tribunal
has held that the driver of the offending vehicle alone is responsible for the accident.
NC: 2023:KHC:44721 MFA No. 1115 of 2018
the disability, if he is not able to drive he ought to have surrendered driving license. There is no such evidence coming up. It is submitted that in every case of disability it would not have any impact on the future prospect. That aspect has not been considered by the Court below. It is submitted that the compensation granted under various heads are on the higher side. It is submitted that the interest that was granted on the compensation amount is at 9% which is also on the higher side.
lorry. It is submitted that no grounds are made out by the Insurance Company.
Company which insured the Car submits that the Court below had rightly held that the driver of the lorry is responsible for the accident and that the evidence on record clearly shows that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry.
road is 24 feet in that the car was 9 feet away from the left side and the lorry is 11.5 feet away from the left side. It is the contention that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the car also. He should have been on his extreme left side. The Court below had observed that the heavy vehicle like lorry moves on a road which is of the width of 24 feet by leaving space of 11.5 feet, then certainly accident is
bound to occur if a vehicle comes from opposite direction. This Court is not able to appreciate any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company about the contributory negligence as the Court below had rightly considered this aspect and held that the accident had taken place because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry basing on Ex.R2.
Court below had rightly considered all the aspects and granted the compensation under all the heads which do not call for any interference.
i) Accordingly, the Appeal of the claimant Insurance Company is allowed-in-part , reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 6% and the amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Court below.
ii) The respondent - insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.
NC: 2023:KHC:44721 MFA No. 1115 of 2018
iii) 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.
iv) The amount in deposit shall be released in favour of the Insurance Company forthwith.
v) No costs.
stand closed.
Sd/JUDGE
RMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 114 CT.:RMS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's finding of negligence and the assessment of compensation.
Whether the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal on the compensation amount is excessive.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
MR.C.R.YOGESH
SMT. RENUKA
MADHUSUDHAN K.E
MANAGER, IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
