Dismissed

Legal Manager v. Sri Srinivas v

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2023MFA/8829/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. against a compensation award of Rs.18 lakh by the Small Causes Court, finding no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's findings regarding medical expenses. The claimant was also denied enhancement of compensation.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Insurance company's deposit to be transmitted to the Tribunal; Trial record returned to Tribunal.

Legal Manager Vs Sri Srinivas v — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39934 MFA No. 8829 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8829 OF 2017 (MV-DM)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

LEGAL MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, EAST WING, NO.28, NEAR CITY BANK, 5^TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU -560 001.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI.PRADEEP B.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

SRI SRINIVAS V S/O LATE VENKATARAM, NOW AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.20, 2^ND CROSS, ATTUR LAYOUT, VIVEKNANDA SCHOOL, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU-64.

¶13

SHRI SRINIVAS S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA, MAJOR,

¶14

R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.VIJAYKUMAR T.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 SEERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:39934 MFA No. 8829 of 2017

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED25.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.5334/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND XXXII ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-3), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.18,06,702/WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION TILL DATE OF PAYMENT/BANK DEPOSIT.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.5334/2015 dated 25.09.2017 on the file of the VII Addl. Judge & XXXII ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.

¶22

2. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation

¶23

of an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, wherein the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.18,06,702/-.

¶24

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company

¶25

submits that insurance company is aggrieved by the

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39934 MFA No. 8829 of 2017

¶27

compensation i.e., under the head of medical bills and the interest 8% that was granted by the Tribunal for the compensation amount. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the court to the medical expenses and submits that medical bills as per Ex.P-24 is to the extent of

¶28

Rs.12,36,359/- and as per Ex.P-33 for an amount of Rs.2,33,543/- and advance receipt at Ex.P-21 and Ex.P-31 and it is taken as an amount of Rs.14,69,902/-. Learned counsel submits that an amount of Rs.2,33,543/- that was granted by the Tribunal was not correct and the claimant is not entitled for such amount and they are only entitled to 6% interest but court below had granted 8% which is also not correct.

¶29

4. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that

¶30

though they have not preferred any appeal, still this court while adjudicating the appeal on the grounds that are raised by the insurance company with regard to the quantum, if finds that the compensation that was awarded was not reasonable, the court can as well enhance the

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:39934 MFA No. 8829 of 2017

¶33

compensation. He submits that for the injuries sustained by him under the head of pain and suffering, the amount that was granted was not reasonable. He submits that even the income that was taken by Tribunal was also not appropriate. He submits that this court has to enhance the compensation as the compensation that was granted was not just and reasonable.

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel on either

¶35

side, perused the entire material on record. The compensation with regard to medical expenses that was granted as per Ex.P-24 is for an amount of Rs.12,36,359/and for Ex.P-33 granted an amount of Rs.2,33,543/- which

¶36

are advance medical receipts and this court finds no reasons to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal, as this court is not interfering with any of the findings of the Tribunal. This court finds no reasons to consider the contentions raised on behalf of the claimant.

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:39934 MFA No. 8829 of 2017

¶38

Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance

¶39

company is Dismissed.

¶40

(a) The amount in deposit by the Insurance Company shall be forthwith transmitted to the Tribunal.

¶41

(b) The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Record to the Tribunal along with the certified copy of the order passed by this court forthwith without any delay.

¶42

¶43

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶44

stand closed.

¶45

SD/JUDGE

¶46

TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 113

Legal Manager v. Sri Srinivas v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Legal Manager v. Sri Srinivas v

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

Sudha Vs v Kumara

Smt Parvathamma Vs Sri Ranganatha

Baby Elaina @ Kumari Aiyfath Vs New India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Smt. Susheelamma Vs Smt. Preethi

Smt Kantha Vs Mr Murugeshan D

Srinivasaiah a Vs the Managing Director