Partly allowed

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sudindra K N @ Kota Sudhindra Somayaji

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2023MFA/1459/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident appeal, the High Court examined the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for injuries sustained by the claimant. The Court found the original disability and loss of leave awards excessive due to lack of evidence regarding functional impact and salary proof. Consequently, the Court enhanced the pain and suffering and attendant/conveyance charges while reducing the disability

What did the court decide?

The compensation was reduced from Rs. 2,78,000 to Rs. 1,85,000/- by enhancing pain/suffering and attendant charges, while disabling the disability award and reducing loss of leave.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sudindra K N @ Kota… — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:28587 MFA No. 1459 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1459 OF 2012 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 4/3/1 AND 3/2, II MAIN, III FLOOR, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 061, NOW AT NO.28, 5^TH FLOOR, EAST WING, CENTENARY BUIDLING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. BY ITS ZONAL LEGAL MANAGER.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. H.S. LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

SUDINDRA K.N. @ KOTA SUDHINDRA SOMAYAJI, NOW AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O N. NEELAKANTA SOMAYAJI, R/O NO.381, 'ARUNA KIRANA NILAYA', 9^TH CROSS, 50 FEET ROAD, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 050.

¶14

H.V. GOPI, S/O VEERABHADREGOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O NO.32, ADHIREDDY BUIDLING, GEETHA COLONY, KANAKANAGARA, YELACHENAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 078, ALSO AT NO.12, I FLOOR, 5^TH CROSS, JARAGANAHALLI,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:28587 MFA No. 1459 of 2012

¶17

J.P. NAGAR, 6^TH PHASE,

¶18

BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. G.K. BHAVANA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED: 10.06.2015; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.08.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.5303/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, AND XXI A.C.M.M., MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,78,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. EXCLUDING INTEREST ON FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the award dated 24.08.2011 passed in MVC No.5303/2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.

¶25

The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.6,40,000/-, on account of the injuries suffered by the claimant in the accident that took place on 17.01.2012. It is the case of the claimant that on 17.01.2012, when he along with other family members in all 10 persons were travelling in a tempo traveller from Bangalore to Mangalore to

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:28587 MFA No. 1459 of 2012

¶27

attend the marriage, because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver cum owner of the vehicle, they met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. As per the wound certificate, the claimant sustained fracture of right fore arm, bones with swelling and tenderness, cut lacerated wound over frontal bone and another cut lacerated wound and mild head injury. The doctor opined that the first injury is grievous and injury Nos.2 and 3 are simple. As per the evidence of the doctor, he was operated and rods were inserted. He had sustained 35% disability to the limb and 12% to the whole body. Thereafter, the implants were removed and for that, he spent an amount of Rs.25,000/-. According to the claimant, he is working in M/s IBM Daksh Pvt. Ltd., as lead operator and drawing a salary of Rs.28,825/- per month and due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he suffered loss of income and also loss of leave. As he had suffered severe injuries, he could not work for at least one month. The Court below considering the evidence on record has held that the accident has happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. As he has sustained one grievous injury and two simple injuries under the head of ' pain

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:28587 MFA No. 1459 of 2012

¶29

and suffering' granted an amount of Rs.50,000/-, towards ' medical expenses' granted a sum of Rs.25,000/-, towards ' disability' a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- , towards ' loss of amenities in life' a sum of Rs.50,000/- , towards ' future medical expenses' a sum of Rs.25,000/- , towards 'attendant charges' a sum of Rs.2,000/- , towards ' loss of leave' a sum of Rs.25,000/- , towards ' conveyance' a sum of Rs.1,000/- was granted. Altogether an amount of

¶30

Rs.2,78,000/- was granted.

¶31

The learned Counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company submits that the Court below on all the heads has granted amounts on the higher side. It is submitted that the Court below having granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for disability, again granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities in life. He submits that though the doctor has given the evidence stating that he has sustained physical disability, there is no evidence with regard to what is the functional disability. He submits that in fact, as per the evidence of the claimant, he is drawing more salary than earlier and he continued to work. He submits that when the said disability has no impact on his life, the Court below ought not to have

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:28587 MFA No. 1459 of 2012

¶33

granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head of Loss of Amenities. Granting compensation under both the counts is bad. He further submits that even for loss of leave, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is granted. It is submitted that except the salary slips, there is nothing on record to show that he is earning an amount of Rs.28,825/-. It is submitted that the compensation that is granted is on the higher side.

¶34

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is an admitted fact that both bones of his right forearm were fractured and he has underwent operation and there are rods inserted and the same have to be removed and future surgery has to be performed. The doctor has opined that he has sustained 35% disability to the limb and 12% to the whole body. It is submitted that the Court below ought to have applied the appropriate multiplier and ought to have granted the compensation. He submitted that amounts granted by the Court below were on the lower side. He submits that no grounds are made out seeking interference with the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:28587 MFA No. 1459 of 2012

¶37

Having heard the learned Counsel on either side,

¶38

perused the entire material on record.

¶39

The claimant had sustained one grievous injury and two simple injuries. The Court below has granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. Though the claimant has not filed any appeal, while hearing the appeal of the Insurance Company and while considering the compensation, if this Court finds that the amount granted by the Tribunal was not reasonable this Court can as well enhance the compensation. Hence considering the fractures sustained by him under the head Pain and Suffering this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.60,000/-, towards medical expenses t he Court below had rightly granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- which requires no interference from this Court. Then coming to the disability, according to the doctor, the claimant had sustained 35% to the limb and 12% to the whole body, the Court while granting compensation has to see whether it is a functional disability and whether it has got any impact on the future prospects. The evidence on record clearly reveals that it has no impact on future prospects of the claimant. Infact, the salary of the claimant is enhanced

¶40

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:28587 MFA No. 1459 of 2012

¶41

thereafter and he has continued to work. Hence, under the head of disability, the claimant is not entitled for any amount and the Court below without any basis had granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant. Coming to the loss of amenities in life as he had sustained the fractures, operation was done and the rods were inserted, definitely it would have impact on his life. Hence there would be some discomfort in life and towards ' loss of amenities in life' , he is entitled for an amount of Rs.50,000/- . Towards ' future medical expenses' also, as per the evidence of the doctor, the Court below had rightly granted an amount of Rs.25,000/. Towards Attendant Charges and Conveyance an amount of Rs.2,000/and Rs.1,000/- respectively was granted which is on the lower side and this Court under the said head, is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.10,000/- . Towards loss of leave , the Court below granting an amount of Rs.25,000/- particularly in the facts and circumstances of the present case, when there is no clear evidence on record, is also on the higher side and hence, the same is reduced to Rs.15,000/-. Altogether, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,85,000/- .

¶42

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:28587 MFA No. 1459 of 2012

¶43

In the light of the above discussion, the claimant is,

¶44

therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following

¶45

heads:

¶46

	Heads	Compensation Awarded (in Rs.)
1.	Pain and Suffering	60,000
2.	Medical expenses	25,000
3.	Loss of amenities in life	50,000
4.	Future medical expenses	25,000
5.	Attendant, conveyance and Transportation	10,000
6.	Loss of leave	15,000
	TOTAL	1,85,000

¶47

Accordingly, the following:

¶48

i) The Appeal of insurance company is partly

¶49

allowed by reducing the compensation from

¶50

Rs.2,78,000 to Rs.1,85.000/-;

¶51

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:28587 MFA No. 1459 of 2012

¶52

ii) The amount deposited by the appellantinsurance company shall be transmitted to the Court below forthwith;

¶53

iii) If any excess amount is deposited by the insurance company-appellant, the

¶54

Insurance Company is entitled to withdraw the same.

¶55

iv) The claimant-respondent is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security;

iv) No costs.

SD/JUDGE

NSU

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT: ABS

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sudindra K N @ Kota Sudhindra Somayaji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sudindra K N @ Kota Sudhindra Somayaji

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

M/S the Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Pillamma W/O Doddamuniswamappa

Ramesh Vs Laxminarayana Bhat

M/S the Oriental Ins Co. Ltd. Vs Sri T Sinivasa

Kishore R @ Kishore Raj R Vs Royal Sundaram Alliance

Sri K M Girish Vs the Regional Manager

Avinash B R Vs Somanna