MFA against Motor Accidents Tribunal awarding Rs.3.20 lakh compensation. Court rejected appellant insurer's challenges regarding FIR delay, petitioner's negligence, intoxication, and disability assessment, affirming the lower award.
Appeal dismissed; compensation amount in deposit to be transmitted to the Tribunal.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:34873 MFA No. 3607 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3607 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE CLAIM MANAGER, TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.69, 3RD FLOOR, J P & DEVI, JAMBUKESWARA ARCADE, MILLER'S ROAD, BANGALORE-52. BY ITS MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka
R/AT THAMMANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATTIBELE POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 106.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NITHYA.V, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRAKASH M.H, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
NOTICE TO R-2 IS D/W V/O DATED 14.12.2021)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 8.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.418/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL
M.A.C.T, BENGLAURU (S.C.C.H.-1), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 3,20,200/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 8.03.2017 passed in MVC No.418/2016 by the Member, Principal MACT, Benglauru (SCCH-1), whereby a sum of Rs.3,20,200/with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization has been awarded as compensation on account of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the road traffic accident.
at about 10.30 p.m. when he was riding a motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-R-7462 from Kanakapura towards Kodihalli, near Petrol Bunk, Indiranagara, Garalapura Dakle, the driver of tractor bearing No. AP-20-T-6156 came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner,
parked the tractor in the middle of the road without giving any signals and without switching on the hazard lights and due to which, petitioner dashed against the tractor and resulting in grievous injuries to him. Immediately, he was shifted to Government hospital, Kanakapura, after first aid treatment, shifted to NIMHANS hospital, then to KIMS hospital, wherein he took treatment as inpatient from 18.01.2015 to 30.01.2015. During the course of treatment x-rays, C.T.Scan were taken and multiple grievous injuries are confirmed and petitioner underwent surgery and spent
Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical and nourishment charges.
account of the accidental injuries, he suffered permanent disability which has resulted in loss of income. The accident in question is purely due to the rash and negligent parking of the tractor bearing No. AP-20-T-6156 and the respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It was further contended that the petitioner has lodged a false complaint against the insured vehicle as
afterthought by twisting the facts and colluding with concerned persons after 23 days of alleged incident in order to get compensation by misusing the judicial process. It was its contention that petitioner without knowledge of riding fell down on his own and insured vehicle is not at all involved in the accident and the petitioner is also responsible for the alleged accident and the liability may kindly be reduced to the extent of the negligence of the petitioner. The petitioner had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. It was further contended that the first respondent owner has not complied the statutory obligation under Section 134(c) of M.V.Act and the concerned police have not complied the provisions of Section 158(6) of M.V.Act. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
petitioner got examined himself as PW1, got examined one witness as PW.2 and Exs.P1 to P18 were marked. Respondents have examined two witnesses as RWs 1 and 2 and Exs.R1 to R8 were marked.
| Pain and sufferings Rs. |
40,000/- |
|---|---|
| Medical expenses Rs. |
45,000/- |
| Loss of income during the period of inpatient and period of treatment Rs. |
32,000/- |
| Food and nourishment, conveyance, attendant charges, ambulance charges and other incidental expenses Rs. |
10,000/- |
| Future loss of earning due to permanent disability Rs.1 |
,63,200/- |
| Loss of amenities Rs. |
30,000/- |
| Total Rs.3 |
,20,200/- |
NC: 2023:KHC:34873 MFA No. 3607 of 2017
under the influence of Alcohol as may be seen from the medical records and therefore, the Tribunal erred in discarding the contributory negligence by him. Fourthly, he contends that the Tribunal had also erred in assessing the disability and income of the petitioner. Therefore, he has sought for intervention of this Court.
NC: 2023:KHC:34873 MFA No. 3607 of 2017
rightly assessed the functional disability in quantifying the compensation to the petitioner.
no such complaint of false implication of the tractor to the higher officers of the police department. Obviously, RW2
is not an eye witness to the accident and therefore, his deposition is only on the basis of the records which are
available. The records produced by the petitioner show that immediately after the accident, he became unconscious and he was taken to Kanakapura Government hospital and thereafter, he was taken to NIMHANS and thereafter, he was shifted to KIMS hospital, Bengaluru. The case sheet of the KIMS hospital Bengaluru is produced at Ex.R2. It discloses that he was admitted to KIMS hospital on 18-1-2015 and was discharged on 30-12015. The records of the Government Hospital, Kanakapura, NIMHANS Bengaluru may also be found in the records. Ex.R2 contains the copy of the case sheet of NIMHANS and it shows that the patient was under the influence of the alcohol. Obviously, only first aid was provided at Government Hospital Kanakapura.
NC: 2023:KHC:34873 MFA No. 3607 of 2017
NC: 2023:KHC:34873 MFA No. 3607 of 2017
The records also reveal that he was unconscious for some time. In the light of the above medical condition and the evidence on record, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the petitioner could have lodged the complaint to the police immediately after the accident. The explanation by the appellant that he was accompanied by his mother in the hospital and none else and also the nature of the injuries suffered by him provide ample explanation for delayed filing of the complaint. The MLC records also show that it was an RTA and the manner in which the accident happened is also mentioned in the case sheets. Therefore the first contention of appellant regarding delay in FIR can be attributed to false implication of tractor, is not sustainable.
NC: 2023:KHC:34873 MFA No. 3607 of 2017
the police papers and came to the conclusion that the spot was not well lit. It has also considered the fact that the medical records do not show sufficient material to hold that the petitioner was in inebriated condition on account of the consumption of the alcohol. It has also observed that the combined reading of the medical records coupled with the spot of the accident where the tractor was abandoned at the center of the road without any indicators, do not permit it to draw an inference that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner. The judgment of the Tribunal in para 17 and 18 are elaborate and consider all the evidence available on record. Hence, I am unable to accept any of the contentions submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. The delay has been sufficiently explained and the circumstances do not show that the tractor was falsely implicated. There is nothing on record to show that there
was any negligence by the petitioner, much less, any contributory negligence. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.1 cannot be faulted with.
NC: 2023:KHC:34873 MFA No. 3607 of 2017
functional disability at 10%. It is relevant to note that for a Lab Technician, the grips strength and pinch strength of the hand are vital for his avocation. Keeping in mind the avocation of the petitioner, the Tribunal fixed the disability at 10%. Therefore, it has awarded the compensation of Rs.1,63,200/- by adopting proper multiplier of 17 under the head of future loss of income. It has also considered the compensation under other heads as stated supra which is not in dispute.
NC: 2023:KHC:34873 MFA No. 3607 of 2017
reason to interfere with the conclusions and the calculations made by the Tribunal and therefore, the appeal is bereft of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
The amount which is in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/JUDGE
tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in FIR registration and petitioner's alleged negligence and intoxication justify setting aside the lower tribunal award.
Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the petitioner's income and functional disability for future loss of earning.
Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal requires interference.
The Claim Manager, Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited
Shivaraju K M
Vasudeva G
C M Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
