Partly allowed

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri P Nagaraj

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2023MFA/8189/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three First Appeals arising from Motor Vehicle Accident cases were heard. The court dismissed the insurance company's appeals challenging liability and enhancement claims, while partly allowing the claimants' appeals, enhancing compensation to Rs. 55,000 and Rs. 1,83,000 respectively based on medical evidence review.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 55,000 for Shivasankar and Rs. 1,83,000 for Nagaraj with 6% interest. Respondents jointly and severally liable.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri P Nagaraj — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8189 OF 2012

¶8

C/W

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4277 OF 2012 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4278 OF 2012 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8188 OF 2012

¶10

IN MFA NO.8189/2012

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.2B, UNITY BUILDING, ANNEX, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶13

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI. C R RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI P NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O SRI P. RAMAPPA, R/AT ALL INDIA CARGO MOVERS LTD., NEAR WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE-560 027.

¶17

...APPELLANT

¶18

SRI G SIVA KUMAR CHETTY, S/O SRI G MUNASWAMY CHETTY

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶21

THAMMI REDDY PALLE VILLAGE, DANDEPALLE POST, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. A SREENIVASAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SERVICE OF NOTICE IN R/O R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.02.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6607/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL JUDGE, AND XVIII ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.14,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN COURT.

¶25

IN MFA NO.4277/2012

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

K SHIVASANKAR S/O K.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT ALL INDIA CARGO MOVERS LTD., NEAR WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE.

¶28

...APPELLANT

¶29

(BY SRI. A SREENIVASAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND

¶31

G. SIVA KUMAR CHETTY S/O. G.MUNASWAMY CHETTY THAMMI REDDY PALLE VILLAGE, DANDAPALLE POST, CHITTOOR DIST., A.P-517001.

¶32

THE MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., R.O.NO.2B, MISSION ROAD,

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶35

UNITY BUILDING ANNEX, BANGALORE-560027.

¶36

…..RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. C. R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD:23.07.2013)

¶38

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25.02.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6605/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL JUDGE, & XVIII ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF OMPENSATION.

¶39

IN MFA NO.4278/2012

¶40

BETWEEN

¶41

P NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O P RAMAPPA R/AT ALL INDIA CARGO MOVERS LTD., NEAR WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE-560027.

¶42

...APPELLANT

¶43

(BY SRI. A SREENIVASAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶44

AND

¶45

G SIVA KUMAR CHETTY S/O G MUNASWAMY CHETTY THAMMI REDDY PALLE VILLAGE, DANDAPALLE POST, CHITTOR DISTRICT A P .-517643.

¶46

THE MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., R O NO.2B, MISSION ROAD,

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶49

UNITY BUILDING ANNEX, BANGALORE 560027.

¶50

….RESPONDENTS

¶51

(BY SRI: C R RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED)

¶52

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25.2.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6607/2009 ON THE FILE OF XX ADDITIONAL JUDGE & XVIII ACMM, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶53

IN MFA NO.8188/2012

¶54

BETWEEN

¶55

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.2B, UNITY BUILDING, ANNEX, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER

¶56

...APPELLANT

¶57

(BY SRI. C R RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶58

AND

¶59

SRI K SHIVASANKAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O SRI K KRISHNAPPA R/AT ALL INDIA CARGO MOVERS LTD., NEAR WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE-560 027.

¶60

SRI G SIVA KUMAR CHETTY S/O SRI G MUNASWAMY CHETTY

¶61

NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶62

¶63

THAMMI REDDY PALLE VILLAGE DANDEPALLE POST, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. A.P

¶64

….RESPONDENTS

¶65

(BY SRI.A. SREENIVASAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICINET (V/O DTD:03/08/2015)

¶66

¶67

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25.02.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6605/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL JUDGE, AND XVIII ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN COURT.

¶68

THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR ‘ PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT ’, THIS DAY, G. BASAVARAJA J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶69

JUDGMENT

¶70

The challenge in these appeals is to the Common Judgment and award dated 25.02.2012 passed MVC Nos.6605/2009 and MVC No.6607/2009 by the XX Addl. and XVIII Addl. ACMM, Bangalore (ACMM-18) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').

¶71

The MFA Nos.8189/2012 and 8188/2012 are filed by the Insurance Company before this Hon’ble High Court

¶72

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶73

challenging the liability; and MFA No.4277/2012 and 4278/2012 are filed before this Hon’ble High court, by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation .

¶74

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF INSURANCE COMPANY:

¶75

Sri C.R. Ravishankar, the learned Counsel for the

¶76

appellant Insurance Company, argues that the Tribunal made a serious error by holding the Insurance Company liable for the accident despite the driver of the offending vehicle not having a valid driving license. The Insurance

¶77

Company claims to have made all efforts to obtain the driver's license for the offending vehicle, but the Tribunal failed to consider this fact. However, the Tribunal still assigned 50% liability to the Insurance Company. According to the First Information Report (FIR), the accident occurred when three individuals were riding a motorcycle with registration number AP-03-AD-8613 on Mangala Street in Palamner Town. The appellant asserts that the accident resulted from the reckless and negligent

¶78

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶79

act of the motorcycle rider, not the driver of the autorickshaw. Therefore, the appellant argues that the motorcycle rider should be held primarily responsible for the alleged accident, and the Insurance Company should not be obligated to pay compensation.

¶80

3.1. In regard to the issue of enhancing the compensation,

¶81

the learned counsel for the Insurance Company raises strong objections. One key contention is that the claimants

¶82

have not provided a disability certificate issued by a qualified medical officer, which is considered crucial evidence in assessing the extent of their injuries. Additionally, the counsel argues that the doctor who examined the claimants lacks the necessary qualifications or recognition as a treated doctor. These discrepancies in the evidence presented by the claimants form the basis for the counsel's plea to allow the appeals filed by the Insurance Company and dismiss the appeals made by the claimants seeking an increase in compensation. By highlighting these factors, the counsel aims to

¶83

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶84

demonstrate the insufficiency and unreliability of the claimants' case and emphasize the need for their appeals to be rejected.

¶85

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF CLAIMANTS

¶86

In response to the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Sri A. Sreenivasaiah, the counsel representing the claimants, offers a counter-argument. The Counsel highlights that the investigation officer has filed a charge sheet (Exhibit-P3) against the driver of the auto rickshaw, indicating his alleged involvement in the accident under various sections

¶87

of the Indian Penal Code and the Motor Vehicles Act. In contrast, no charge sheet has been filed against the motorcycle rider, implying a lack of evidence to establish any contributory negligence on their part. The counsel asserts that the absence of any specific issue pertaining to

¶88

the contributory negligence of the motorcycle rider, as framed by the Tribunal, further supports their argument.

¶89

¶90

NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶91

Additionally, Sri A. Sreenivasaiah contends that the Tribunal failed to adequately consider the evidence provided by a doctor who testified about the claimants' permanent disabilities. The counsel claims that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was insufficient across all categories, and therefore, seeks an enhancement of compensation. By raising these points, the counsel urges the court to allow the appeals and impose liability on the Insurance Company while addressing the shortcomings in the previous compensation award.

¶92

Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of records, the following points arise for

¶93

consideration in these appeals:

¶94

Whether the insurance company has made out grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment in MFA No.8188/2012 and 8189/2012 as to the liability of the insurance company?

¶95

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶96

Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation and also liability of the insurance in MFA

¶97

No.4278/2012 & 4277/2012?

¶98

What order or award?

¶99

My answer to the above points are as under:

¶100

(1) Negative

¶101

(2) Partly Affirmative

¶102

(3) As per final order

¶103

All these four appeals arising out of the judgment

¶104

and award passed by the XX Addl. and XVIII Addl. ACMM, Bangalore (ACMM-18) in MVC Nos.6605/2009, MVC No.6607/2009.

¶105

After a thorough examination of the materials presented

¶106

before the Tribunal, it becomes evident that a complaint was lodged by R.S. Jyotiramudu at the Palamaner Police Station in Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh. Subsequently, the police registered a case with Crime No. 137/2009, dated 25.05.2009, against the driver of a luggage auto with the

¶107

11 -

¶108

NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶109

registration number AP-03-X-6222. The First Information Report (FIR), marked as Ex.P-1, was duly submitted to the Court based on this complaint. During the course of the investigation, the investigation officer obtained a wound certificate and proceeded to file a charge sheet, marked as Ex.P-3. This charge sheet was prepared for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section.338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Sections 134(a) and (b), 187, and Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶110

In addition to the documentary evidence, the testimonies of PW1-Shivakumar and PW2 - P. Nagaraja further support the claim of the rash and negligent act exhibited by the driver of the offending vehicle with registration number AP-03-X-6222. On the other hand, the respondent-Insurance company has filed a written statement arguing that the complaint filed with the Palamaner police clearly indicates that at the time of the accident, three individuals were riding a motorcycle with

¶111

12 -

¶112

NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶113

registration number AP-03-AD-8613. They assert that the alleged accident occurred due to the motorcycle rider's failure to control balance, resulting in a fall. To substantiate their defence, the insurance company called

¶114

K. Chidambaram, son of Late C.K. Mani, as RW1. RW1 represented the insurance company and provided evidence confirming that he issued the insurance policy for the auto rickshaw with registration number AP-03-X-6222. It is stated in his evidence that the driver of the auto-rickshaw, who is said to have caused the alleged accident, did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident. The investigating officer (IO) has filed a charge sheet against the driver of the auto-rickshaw under Section 3(1) read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶115

During the cross-examination of RW1, it is revealed that the insurance company conducted an investigation regarding the driving license of the offending vehicle. However, the investigation report or any evidence regarding the driving license has not been presented

¶116

13 - NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶117

before the Court. Interestingly, Respondent No.2, the insurance company, did not mention in their objections statement as to the investigation conducted by the Insurance company. This omission raises questions about the validity of the insurance company's claims.

¶118

10.1. Furthermore, despite being aware of the alleged accident, the insurance company made no efforts to obtain the details of the incident promptly. It is unclear whether the investigating officer issued a notice to the vehicle owner to ascertain the particulars of the driver of the offending vehicle, as required under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶119

In the absence of substantial evidence or documentation regarding the driving license status of the driver of the offending vehicle, it is not possible to conclude definitively that the driver did not possess a valid

¶120

license at the time of the accident. The Tribunal rightly acknowledged that the respondent/Insurance company

¶121

14 -

¶122

NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶123

failed to produce any documents to substantiate their claim in this regard.

¶124

11.1. Regarding the issue of contributory negligence, the Tribunal observed that PW1, PW2, and Jyothirayadu were proceeding on the motorcycle, which technically violates Section 128 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. However, the mere presence of two pillion riders on the motorcycle does not automatically imply contributory negligence on the part of the motorcycle rider. It is important to note that the investigating officer did not make any allegations against the motorcycle rider regarding rash and negligent driving, nor did they file any charge sheet against the motorcycle rider for contributory negligence. The Tribunal, without sufficient supporting evidence or witnesses, assumed the existence of contributory negligence solely based on the fact that three persons were riding the motorcycle. This approach is legally impermissible. Consequently, the Tribunal's conclusion that there is 50% contributory negligence on the part of the motorcycle rider

¶125

15 - NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶126

is not sustainable under the law, as it fails to properly evaluate the evidence on record.

¶127

Considering the evidence placed by the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner/claimants have proved the fact that the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent on the part of driver of Autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.AP-03-X-6222.

¶128

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO MFA No.8188/2012:

¶129

In the case of MVC No.6605/2009, relating to MFA No.8188/2012, the tribunal made noteworthy observations. It was revealed through PW1's deposition that a fracture of the lateral femoral condyle of the right knee had been sustained. Treatment was sought at the Government Head Quarter Hospital in Chittor, followed by discharge. A copy of the wound certificate, Ex.P4, issued by the Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, indicated

¶130

a linear laceration on the right knee, prompting a transfer

¶131

16 - NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶132

to Chittor Hospital. During a recent examination on 20.09.2011, PW3, an orthopedic surgeon at Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital in Bengaluru, assessed a disability of 25.7% to the right lower limb and 13% to the overall body. However, discrepancies arose concerning the X- rays, Exs.P.9 and 10, which lacked critical information, raising doubts as to their authenticity. Furthermore, no concrete evidence was produced to verify inpatient or outpatient treatment at Chittor Hospital. These factors may impact the petitioner's endeavor for enhanced compensation.

¶133

Additionally, it is worth noting that if the petitioner had indeed suffered a fracture on the lateral femoral condyle of the right knee, it would have necessitated inpatient treatment at either of the aforementioned hospitals. However, there is no evidence to support the petitioner receiving inpatient treatment at either hospital. Therefore, it becomes evident that the petitioner did not sustain the aforementioned fractures but rather a simple

¶134

17 - NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶135

linear laceration on the right knee. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/- for "pain and suffering," leading to an overall compensation award of Rs.16,000/-.

¶136

Upon careful examination of the documents Exs.P.4 to 12, a clear and compelling picture emerges, fully supporting the petitioner's claims. Notably, the wound certificate (Ex.P4) of Shivashankar reveals that the petitioner was admitted to the hospital on 25.05.2009 following a road traffic accident. The examining doctor noted a significant linear laceration measuring 10cm X 2cm, penetrating the muscle, over the right knee, along with restricted movements. Subsequently, the petitioner was referred to the headquarter hospital in Chittoor. The discharge summary from the District headquarter hospital (Ex.P6) further substantiates the presence of a fracture in the lateral femoral condyle of the right knee, reinforcing the severity of the injuries sustained. The documented medical opinion deems these injuries as grievous.

¶137

18 - NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶138

Additional supporting evidence includes the outpatient slip (Ex.P.5) issued by the Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, Chittoor, and the series of prescription slips (Exs.P.7 to 9) provided by the attending medical officer. Moreover, the inclusion of X-rays (Ex.P.10) bolsters the comprehensive nature of the medical assessment. Ex.P.12

¶139

outpatient slip issued by the Bowring lady curzon hospitals, Bengaluru dated 20.09.2011 and X-ray of Shivashankar dated 20.09.2011 produced as Ex.P.13. The receipt pertaining to X-ray, which is for Rs.75. Collectively,

¶140

these compelling documents validate the petitioner's injuries and the subsequent medical treatment received, leaving little room for doubt or dispute.

¶141

It appears that despite the petitioner providing a discharge summary and other supporting documents indicating that they received inpatient treatment from 27.05.2009 to 09.06.2009, the tribunal erroneously disregarded this evidence. The tribunal's observation that the petitioner did not receive inpatient treatment at the

¶142

19 - NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶143

said hospital contradicts the documentary evidence presented by the petitioner. Notably, Ex.P.6, the discharge summary, explicitly states that the petitioner underwent surgery on 28.05.2009 for a diagnosed fracture of the lateral femoral condyle in the right knee. The summary also indicates that the wound was healing well at the time of discharge. However, the petitioner has not submitted any evidence regarding the disability resulting from this fracture. Considering the nature of the injuries, the accompanying pain and suffering, and the necessary medical expenses, it would be fair and just to award compensation under the following categories.

¶144

Sl.No.	Head	Amount
1	Injury, pain and agony	Rs.20,000/-
2	Minimum medical expenses	Rs.5,000/- (As awarded by the tribunal)
3	Loss of earning during treatment	Rs.5,000/-
4	Attendant charges, Food, Nutrition, Conveyance	Rs.5,000/-
5	Loss of amenities and future unhappiness due to fracture	Rs.20,000/-
	Total	Rs. 55,000/-

¶145

NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶146

20 -

¶147

16.1. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.55,000/-.

¶148

In the case of MFA No.4278/2012 arising from MVC No.6607/2009, the tribunal has considered the statement of PW2. According to PW2's testimony, he sustained injuries including a fracture of the mid shaft of the right femur and a fracture of the patella. He underwent surgery at the Government Head Quarter Hospital in Chittoor and was subsequently discharged with advice for bed rest. The wound certificate, Ex.P.11, issued by the Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, indicates that the petitioner has suffered a fracture deformity in the right thigh with external rotation of the leg, as well as several abrasions and lacerations on various body parts. However, it is worth noting that the petitioner has not presented any X- rays or radiological reports to substantiate the claimed fractures of the mid shaft of the right femur and the patella. Despite PW2's statement that he received treatment at the Government Head Quarter Hospital in

¶149

21 - NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶150

Chittoor, no supporting documents regarding this treatment have been provided by the petitioner. The lack of concrete evidence, such as X-rays or medical records, pertaining to the fractures and the treatment received at the Government Head Quarter Hospital raises concerns about the validity of the petitioner's claims.

¶151

Based on the tribunal's observations, PW4, an orthopedic surgeon at Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital in Bangalore, only provided evidence regarding the assessment of the petitioner's disability on a specific date, namely 20.09.2011. Given the discussions held thus far, the tribunal finds it difficult to place reliance on the evidence provided by PW4. It appears that the petitioner's injuries are limited to a laceration over the femur of the right leg, abrasions on the right knee and leg, as well as multiple abrasions on the left forearm, all of which are deemed to be simple in nature. Taking all these factors into consideration, the tribunal has determined an award of compensation amounting to Rs.29,000/-.

¶152

22 -

¶153

NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶154

After carefully reviewing the evidence provided by PW2, it becomes apparent that a detailed account of the injuries sustained in the accident has been presented. The injured/appellant has also submitted Ex.P.11, a wound certificate issued by the Andhra Pradesh Vaidyanath Parishad, which corroborates the specific injuries, including fracture deformity of the right thigh with external rotation of the leg, abrasions on the left knee and leg, multiple small abrasions on the left forearm, and a muscle-deep laceration on the right knee. Additionally, an X-ray report, identified as 2035/220/3/05/9, was obtained for the right knee and thigh, showing expert opinions on a mid-shaft fracture of the right femur and a fractured patella. It is noteworthy that the doctor's assessment has categorized injuries No.1 and No.5 as grievous, while injuries No.2, No.3, and No.4 are considered simple.

¶155

Supporting the injured/appellant's case, Ex.P.14, the OPD card issued by Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital in Bengaluru, and Ex.P.15, an X-ray taken on 20.09.2011,

¶156

NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶157

23 -

¶158

further substantiate the injuries. Moreover, a receipt for the X-ray payment of Rs.150/- is included in the X-ray cover. The comprehensive nature of these presented documents underscores the veracity of the injuries sustained, as attested by medical assessments and reports.

¶159

The observations of tribunal in handling the PW4's testimony raises concerns. PW4, a doctor at Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital in Bengaluru, provided a deposition stating that the petitioner has a permanent residual physical disability of approximately 17% of their whole body. However, it was revealed during cross-examination that PW4 had not conducted an assessment of the petitioner's functional disability. Despite the lack of dispute regarding the fractures documented in Ex.P.11, the tribunal inexplicably dismissed PW4's evidence without providing adequate reasoning.

¶160

24 -

¶161

NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶162

Given the weight of the injuries outlined in Ex.P.11, supported by PW4's testimony, it would be just and appropriate to consider a disability assessment of at least 10% for the entire body. The tribunal should have taken into account the substantial evidence provided and given proper consideration to PW4's professional expertise. By neglecting to do so, the tribunal's decision seems to have overlooked crucial aspects, warranting a reassessment of the petitioner's disability.

¶163

In regard to the petitioner Nagaraj's income, it is evident that there is insufficient proof to establish his actual earnings. Although Nagaraj testified that he worked as a loader under various lorry owners and earned a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/-, there is a lack of substantial evidence supporting this claim. Consequently, it would be just and fair to assess his income as Rs.5,000/- for the year of the accident, 2009, in accordance with the chart issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority.

¶164

25 - NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶165

Furthermore, considering that Nagaraj was 27 years old at the time of the accident, as indicated in Ex.P.11, the wound certificate, a multiplier of 17 is deemed applicable. Thus, the calculation for loss of future earnings due to disability amounts to Rs.1,02,000/(Rs.5,000X12X

¶166

17X10% = Rs.1,02,000/-).

¶167

24.1 Given the nature of the injuries sustained by Nagaraj,

¶168

it is just and equitable to award compensation as follows, taking into account the aforementioned calculations and the circumstances surrounding the case.

¶169

Sl.No.	Head	Amount
1	Injury, pain and agony	Rs.30,000/-
2	Minimum medical expenses	Rs.8,000/-
3	Loss of earning during treatment(laid up period)	Rs.10,000/-
4	Attendant charges, Food, Nutrition,Conveyance	Rs.8,000/-
5	Loss of future earning due to disability	Rs.1,02,000/-
6	Loss of amenities	Rs.25,000/-
	Total	Rs.1,83,000/-

¶170

26 -

¶171

NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶172

24.2 Accordingly, petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,83,000/-.

¶173

The respondent No.1 was the owner of the offending vehicle as on the date of accident. Respondent No.2 was the insurance company. Hence, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

¶174

Accordingly, the insurance company has failed to prove that they are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner/appellants and claimants entitled for enhancement of compensation as stated above. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative and point No.2 partly in the affirmative.

¶175

POINT NO.3 : For the aforesaid reasons and

¶176

discussions, I proceed to pass the following:

¶177

27 -

¶178

NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶179

ORDER

¶180

1. MFA No.8189/2012 and 8188/2012 filed by New India Assurance Company Limited are dismissed.

¶181

1. MFA No.4277/2012 and MFA No.4278/2012 are partly allowed.

¶182

1. Appellant in MFA No.4277/2012 Sri.Shivasankar is entitled for compensation of Rs.55,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% P.A. from the date of filing this petition till its realisation.

¶183

1. Appellant in MFA No.4278/2012 Nagaraj is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,83,000/- with interest of 6% P.A. from the date of filing this petition till its realisation.

¶184

1. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

¶185

1. Respondent No.2-Insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount with interest at the rate of 6% P.A. within 60 days

¶186

28 - NC: 2023:KHC:23962 MFA No. 8189 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 4277 of 2012 MFA No. 4278 of 2012 MFA No. 8188 of 2012

¶187

from the date of filing this petition till its realization.

¶188

1. The deposited amount if any by the Insurance company shall be transmitted to the tribunal for disbursement to the claimant.

¶189

1. Draw an award accordingly.

¶190

1. All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact.

¶191

Sd/JUDGE

¶192

¶193

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri P Nagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri P Nagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanumanthegowda Vs the Manager

Sri v S Subramaniam @ Subramani Vs M/S Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Shantha Vs Kamalamma

Bharath G R Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhagya Vs the Manager

Mallappa S/O Hanumanthappa Tinkapur, Vs the Authorised Officer and