Partly allowed

The Manager v. Sri Puttappa @ Puttanna

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2024MFA/384/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurer appealed a motor accident award to an injured vegetable vendor. The court reduced notional income to Rs.6,500 p.m. per KSLSA guidelines, cutting loss-of-future-income to Rs.1,49,760, upheld 12% disability, scaled interest down from 8% to 6% p.a., and allowed pay-and-recover against the owner.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part: loss of future income reduced to Rs.1,49,760; interest scaled down to 6% p.a.; insurer to deposit within six weeks with liberty to recover from insured owner.

The Manager Vs Sri Puttappa @ Puttanna — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39303 MFA No. 384 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 384 OF 2020 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 1ST FLOOR MAGANOOR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX P B ROAD CHITRADURGA REP BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD REGIONAL OFFICE CENTENARY BUILDING M G ROAD BANGALORE-560001.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. D VIJAYAKUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI PUTTAPPA @ PUTTANNA S/O SANNABOMMAIYAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS VEGETABLE BUSINESS R/O NIDAGAL, NYAYADAGUNTE VILLAGE PAVAGADA TALUK.

¶13

SMT LAKSHMI DEVI W/O ANGADI TIPPESWAMI R/O HURULIKATTE DODDAGOLLAHATTI VILLAGE PARASHURAMAPURA HOBLI CHELLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHIVAKUMARAPPA T.C., ADVOCATE FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39303 MFA No. 384 of 2020

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 30.07.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 377/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, AND ADDITIONAL MACT-III, CHITRADURGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 2,69,264/- WITH INTEREST AT 8 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.

¶17

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles

¶21

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.07.2019 passed by the Principal Senior

¶22

Civil Judge and Addl. MACT-III, Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.377/2018.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 23.05.2011 at about 10.15 a.m., when the claimant was proceeding in a Tata Ace bearing registration No.KA-16/B-1910 along with his vegetable bags, when he reached near High School, Junjaragunte, Challakere Taluk, at that time, the driver of the said

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39303 MFA No. 384 of 2020

¶25

vehicle drove the same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, the vehicle toppled down. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶26

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act, seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent significant amount towards medical expenses, conveyance charges and other related costs. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶27

Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed separate written statements denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶28

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove the case, examined himself as PW-1, and Dr.Channa Reddy was

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39303 MFA No. 384 of 2020

¶30

examined as PW-2, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,69,264/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶31

The learned counsel for the Insurance Company raised the following contentions:

¶32

(i) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but he has not produced any documents to establish the same, the

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39303 MFA No. 384 of 2020

¶34

Tribunal erred in assuming the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.8,000/- which is on the higher side.

¶35

(ii) Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. The doctor has assessed the disability of 46% to particular limb. The doctor examined the claimant after 7 years after the accident. PW2 is not the treated doctor. Under the circumstances, the whole body disability assessed by the Tribunal at 12% is on the higher side.

¶36

(iii) Thirdly, considering the evidence of the doctor, medical records, injuries suffered by the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.

¶37

(iv) Fourthly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –v- Venkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 8% p.a. on the compensation amount appears excessive.

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39303 MFA No. 384 of 2020

¶39

(v) Lastly, the Tribunal has given a clear finding that the claimants are traveling in the goods vehicle as passengers. Since the insured has violated the policy condition, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. But the Tribunal erred in directing the Insurance Company to pay and then to recover from the insured. Hence, he sought to allow the appeal.

¶40

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant raised the following counter-contentions:

¶41

(i) Firstly, at the time of the accident he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as a vegetable vendor. Considering the age and avocation of the claimant the Tribunal has rightly assessed Rs.8,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased.

¶42

(ii) Secondly, the Tribunal, after considering the evidence of the doctor and the injuries suffered by the claimant has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 12%.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:39303 MFA No. 384 of 2020

¶45

(iii) Thirdly, considering the evidence of the parties and the materials available on record the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

¶46

(iv) Lastly, in view of the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. BIJAPUR vs. YALLAVVA AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2020 Kar.2239 , the Insurance Company has to pay the compensation amount at the first instance with liberty to recover the same form the insured. Hence, sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶47

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal and the original records.

¶48

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 23.05.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:39303 MFA No. 384 of 2020

¶50

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. But he has not produced any documents to substantiate his claim. Therefore, in the absence of proof of income, notional income has to be assessed. According to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year 2011, notional income shall be taken at Rs.6,500/- p.m.

¶51

Due to the accident, the claimant has sustained fracture of lower end of right tibia and right medial mallelous and other injuries. Taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at 12%. The claimant was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘16’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,49,760/-

¶52

(Rs.6,5001216*12%) on account of 'loss of future income'. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal

¶53

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:39303 MFA No. 384 of 2020

¶54

under the head 'loss of future income' is reduced from

¶55

Rs.1,84,320/- to Rs.1,49,760/-.

¶56

Due to the accident the claimant has suffered the aforesaid injury. He was inpatient for a period of 20 days. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the evidence of the parties and the materials available on record the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶57

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶60

(ii) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶61

(iii) Following the judgment of the Division Bench of

¶62

this Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’ (supra) , the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 8% p.a. is scalled down to 6% p.a.

¶63

(iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a.

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:39303 MFA No. 384 of 2020

¶65

10 -

¶66

from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with liberty to recover the same from the insured – owner of the offending vehicle.

¶67

(v) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶68

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶69

¶70

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60

The Manager v. Sri Puttappa @ Puttanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. Sri Puttappa @ Puttanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Rajesha Vs Sri. Sharath H.D.

Sri Chikkarudraiah R Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Mani. a Vs M/S. Hariharan Logistics Parthiban

S. Shivakumara Swamy Vs G. N. Shivakumar

Shriram Gic Ltd. Vs Sri. Shameemthaz

Sri Srinivas K T Vs Sri Manjunath R K