Partly allowed

The Manager v. Darshan K

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2024MFA/3552/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the insurance company's appeal in part, modifying the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal award by reducing the assessed income and removing an unwarranted 40% addition for future prospects, lowering total compensation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award modified; total compensation reduced to Rs. 6,30,554/- from Rs. 7,74,522/-; loss of future income and laid-up period calculations recalculated.

The Manager Vs Darshan K — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:2503 MFA No. 3552 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3552 OF 2022 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM MS. GEN. INS. CO. LTD #230, 5^TH CROSS, 12^TH MAIN ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU-570 009.

¶8

NOW REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM MS. GEN. INS. CO. LTD UNIT IV, 9^TH FLOOR, (LEVEL-06) GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX, 59^TH 'C' CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB RAJAJINAGAR 4^TH 'M' BLOCK, BENGLAURU-560010.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

DARSHAN K. S/O KUMARASWAMY M.S. AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O KADALAGERE VILLAGE, MELUKOTE HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK.

¶14

KUMARA G.S. S/O SUBBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:2503 MFA No. 3552 of 2022

¶17

R/AT #10, GEJJEHOSURU VILLAGE, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M.Y., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.01.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.727/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, PANDAVAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.7,74,522/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is preferred by the appellant - Insurance Company challenging the judgment & award dated 1^st January 2022 passed in MVC No.727/2020 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Pandavapura. This appeal is founded on the premise of exhorbitant compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶24

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶25

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:2503 MFA No. 3552 of 2022

¶27

It is the case of the claimant that when he was riding his motorcycle on the left side of Pandavapura-Srirangapatna Main Road, near Lal Bahadur Theater at Pandavapura town on 14.3.2020 at 6.00 p.m., the driver of the Ashok Layland Goods vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-54-7866 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed and dashed against his motorcycle from the rear side. Due to the impact of the accident, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries to his right leg and other parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to Pandavapura Government hospital, where he took first aid treatment and thereafter, he was shifted to Bhavani Hospital, Mysuru for further treatment. Due to the fracture of right leg bone, he was admitted as an in-patient and underwent surgery and plate and screw were fixed to the fractured bones. He was subsequently discharged on 17.3.2020 with an advice to take sufficient bed rest. Thereafter, the claimant taken treatment as an out-patient and expended more than Rs.2.00 lakhs.

¶28

3.1 It is stated that the claimant was a final year B.A.

¶29

student in a Government college, Mandya. He was a brilliant student and participated in several district and state level youth

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:2503 MFA No. 3552 of 2022

¶32

conferences and obtained many awards. He was also an agriculturist and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Due to the occurrence of the accident, he is suffering from permanent disability and lost his income. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition.

¶33

3.2 The Insurance Company filed the written statement before the Tribunal denying the Petition averments including occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the claimant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶34

3.3 Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration.

¶35

3.4 In order to substantiate the issues, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and doctor as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P31. The Insurance Company did not lead evidence nor produced any documents in support of its case.

¶36

3.5 Based on the material evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,74,522/- alongwith interest at 6% per annum and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:2503 MFA No. 3552 of 2022

¶39

3.6 Being aggrieved by the exorbitant compensation

¶40

awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant - Insurance company is before this Court challenging the same.

¶41

It is the contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.15,500/- per month despite no documentary proof placed on record and therefore, the income of the claimant assessed by the Tribunal requires to be reduced to Rs.14,500/- per month in consonance with the notional income stipulated in the Legal Services Authority Chart. It is also contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the Tribunal has misdirected itself in awarding future prospects at 40% in a case where the disability is to an extent of 27%. The Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that it is not a case of death so also it is not a case of permanent disability to an extent of more than 85%, which would call for addition of 40% towards future prospects while assessing the income. Therefore, addition of 40% towards future prospects is uncalled for and the income of the claimant has to be taken at Rs.14,500/- for computing compensation. It is also contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:2503 MFA No. 3552 of 2022

¶43

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of income during the laid up period/treatment period' is on the higher side and the same is to be reduced. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks to allow the appeal and consequently modify the impugned judgment & award.

¶44

Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 - claimant sustains the impugned judgment & award passed by the Tribunal and contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. On the basis of the material evidence, the Tribunal has rightly arrived at a just and proper compensation, which does not call for interference at the hands of this Court and seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶45

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the Trial Court Records.

¶46

The short point for consideration in this case is whether the Tribunal is right in assessing the income of the claimant at Rs.15,500/- and adding 40% towards future

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:2503 MFA No. 3552 of 2022

¶48

prospects while computing the compensation under the head of 'loss of future income' and so also whether the compensation awarded under the head of 'loss of income during the laid up period/treatment period' is on the higher side ?

¶49

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, there is no dispute with regard to occurrence of the accident, involvement of vehicle and FIR & charge sheet being laid against the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore without going into all those aspects, coming to the question of assessing the income of the claimant at Rs.15,500/- per month, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company that the Tribunal has taken the said sum without any basis of proof produced by the claimant and the amount will have to be reduced in consonance with the notional income provided by the Legal Services Authority chart, which prescribes the income for the accident of the year 2020 at Rs.14,500/-. The Tribunal added 40% towards future prospects, which according to this Court is unwarranted for the simple reason that the present case does not involve death or permanent disability or any disability which restricts 100% movement of the claimant. Under the circumstances, addition

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:2503 MFA No. 3552 of 2022

¶51

of 40% towards future prospects while assessing the income of the claimant, is uncalled for and the income has to be taken at Rs.14,500/per month for computing compensation.

¶52

Hence, 'loss of future income' would be Rs.14,500 x 12 x 18 x 9% = Rs.2,81,880/- as against Rs.4,21,848/- awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, there is some substance in the argument putforth by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and requires to be marginally reduced.

¶53

The next question for consideration would be with regard to 'loss of income during the laid up period/treatment period'. Considering the fact that the claimant has sustained certain extent of disability making him incapable for performing activities of his avocation, atleast four months period would be required to be taken for recuperation to do any other job. In view of this Court reducing the income of the claimant from 15,500/- to Rs.14,500/- per month, he would entitled for Rs. 14,500/- x 4 = Rs.58,000/- under the said head. Therefore, the compensation under the head of 'loss of income during the laid up period/treatment period' is reduced from Rs.62,000/-

¶54

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:2503 MFA No. 3552 of 2022

¶55

to Rs.58,000/-. I deem it appropriate to retain the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads.

¶56

In view of the above, the Respondent No.1 - claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,30,554/- as against Rs.7,74,522/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶57

Sl. No.	Head of compensation	Amount of compensation awarded
1	Loss of future income	Rs.2,81,880-00
2	Loss of income during the laid up period/treatment period	Rs. 58,000-00
3	Medical and Treatment expenses	Rs. 92,674-00
4	Attendant charges and nourishing food expenses	Rs. 3,000-00
5	Pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries	Rs. 50,000-00
6	Future Medical Expenss	Rs. 60,000-00
7	Discomfort, future pain and sufferings	Rs. 75,000-00
8	Conveyance	Rs. 10,000-00
	Total	Rs.6,30,554-00

¶58

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶59

O R D E R

¶60

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶61

10 -

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:2503 MFA No. 3552 of 2022

¶63

ii) The impugned Judgment & award dated 1^st January 2022 passed in MVC No.727/2020 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Pandavapura, is modified.

¶64

iii) The Respondent No.1 - claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,30,554/(Rupees six lakhs thirty thousand five hundred and fifty-four only) as against Rs.7,74,522/awarded by the Tribunal alongwith interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization;

¶65

iv) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the Tribunal shall stand intact.

¶66

v) The balance amount of compensation shall be deposited by the appellant - Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment;

¶67

vi) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, pursuant to which

¶68

11 -

¶69

NC: 2024:KHC:2503 MFA No. 3552 of 2022

¶70

the same shall be disbursed to the Respondent No.1 - claimant on proper verification.

¶71

vii) Registry is directed to transmit the original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

The Manager v. Darshan K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. Darshan K

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

Puneeth Kumar Vs Madhu

Sri Chandra Poojari Vs Avinash

Mr Shekara Y D Vs Mr Somaraju Y S

Bhaskar Devadiga Vs Sathish

Sri. Mallikarjuna T v Vs Smt. N Radha

Sri. Harish R Vs the Manager, Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd.