Partly allowed

Sri H S Kumar v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Karnataka HC25 Jan 2024MFA/684/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured by a rashly driven car sought enhancement of MACT compensation. Court raised notional income to Rs.14,500, functional disability to 10%, and awarded additional heads, enhancing compensation from Rs.2,62,303 to Rs.4,55,603 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced from Rs.2,62,303 to Rs.4,55,603; enhanced amount payable with 6% interest within four weeks by the insurance company.

Sri H S Kumar Vs Reliance General Insurance Company… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:3671 MFA No. 684 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 684 OF 2022 (MV-I)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI H.S.KUMAR S/O SIDDALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS TCH COLLEGE MAIN ROAD MUNESHWARA LAYOUT HARINAGARA BENGALURU-560 062

¶7

AND ALSO AT HOMMAIKAMAHALLI MANDYA-571 422.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. GIRIMALLAIAH.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD BRANCH OFFICE EAST WING 5^TH FLOOR NO.28 CENTENARY BUILDING

¶12

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

M G ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 BY ITS MANAGER

¶15

SRI B N BHARATH S/O DR NARAHARAI RAO B N MAJOR NO.13 SRI LAKSHMI NILAYA RESHMENAGARA, BSK 6^TH STAGE GANIGARAPALYA BENGALURU-560 062.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 08.12.2023., SRI.PRADEEP B.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:3671 MFA No. 684 of 2022

¶19

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.11.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1341/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-5), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 18^th November 2021 passed in MVC.No.1341/2020 by the VIII Additional Judge & ACMM, Member, MACT, Bengaluru (for short ‘ the Tribunal’ ). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶23

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

¶24

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:3671 MFA No. 684 of 2022

¶27

On 2.2.2020 at about 11.20 a.m. the claimant was crossing Kanakapura main road from West to East, at that time, one Ford Figo Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MM5154 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from the Thalaghattapura in a high speed and dashed against the claimant. Due to the impact of the accident, the claimant was thrown on the road and sustained severe injuries and he was immediately shifted to Sri Sai Ram Hospital, where he took first aid treatment and thereafter referred to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Bengaluru, where he underwent surgery. In view of occurrence of the accident, claimant sustained permanent disability.

¶28

3.1 It is pleaded that the claimant was hale and healthy prior to occurrence of the accident. He was working as a Loader earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to the injuries suffered and the expenses incurred, he filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

¶29

3.2 Respondent No.2 though served, remained unrepresented and he was placed exparte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 filed the written statement denying the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:3671 MFA No. 684 of 2022

¶32

averments made in the claim petition including age, avocation and negligence attributed against driver of the offending vehicle. It is also pleaded that driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective Driving Licence and committed breach of the policy conditions. Therefore sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶33

3.3 On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the relevant issues for consideration.

¶34

3.4 In order to substantiate the issues and establish the case, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and doctor as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. The respondents did not lead any evidence nor produced any documents on their behalf

¶35

3.5 Based on the material evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,62,303/- with interest at 9% per annum and directed the respondent No.1/Insurance Company to deposit the compensation within two months.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:3671 MFA No. 684 of 2022

¶38

3.6 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation

¶39

awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶40

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the income of the claimant assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The Tribunal committed an error in assessing the disability at 6% despite the doctor assessing permanent physical disability to the whole body at 18%. The Tribunal also committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation on all the heads. On these grounds, he seeks for substantial enhancement of compensation.

¶41

Per contra, learned counsel representing the insurance company contends that there is no error, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He further contends that the Tribunal awarded just and reasonable compensation under all heads, in accordance with the material evidence, both oral and documentary and the same does not call for interference.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:3671 MFA No. 684 of 2022

¶44

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

¶45

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.

¶46

In order to substantiate and establish the aspect of negligence and injuries suffered, the claimant has produced Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 the police records as well as the medical records. The police records - Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 clearly depict registration of FIR and laying of the charge sheet against driver of the car, which have not been questioned. Therefore, negligence is rightly attributed against driver of the car and consequently Respondent No.1/Insurance Company. The medical records - Ex.P6 to Ex.P11 go to show the magnitude of the injuries suffered by the claimant, so also the medical expenses incurred by the claimant.

¶47

Now coming to the age, income and avocation of the claimant, though the claimant pleaded that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, nothing is placed on record to prove the same. The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant to be Rs.14,000/- per month, whereas the Legal Services Authority chart prescribes the notional income of Rs.14,500/-

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:3671 MFA No. 684 of 2022

¶50

per month for the accident of the year 2020. Accordingly, the same is taken as income for computation in the present case as against Rs.14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The age of the claimant as on the date of accident is 40 years. The appropriate multiplier is '15', which is rightly taken by the Tribunal and the same does not call for interference.

¶51

The doctor adduced the evidence as PW.2 and deposed that the claimant sustained grievous injuries and assessed permanent physical disability to whole body from right lower limb at 18%. The Tribunal taken the disability to be 6% for computing compensation, which is on the lower side.

¶52

There is no contra material placed on record and cogent evidence adduced by the Insurance Company by producing second opinion or any other medical opinion to contradict the statement of the doctor/PW.2. The age of claimant as on date of accident is 40 years and he is a loader by occupation. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case including the age and avocation of the claimant so also the evidence of the doctor, I deem it appropriate to assess the functional disability of the clamant to be 10%.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:3671 MFA No. 684 of 2022

¶55

In view of the above, the loss of future income would be Rs.14,500 x 12 x 15 x 10% = Rs.2,61,000/- as against Rs.1,51,200/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶56

Towards 'pain and suffering', the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/-, which is on the lower side and I deem it appropriate to award additional Rs.15,000/- under this head.

¶57

Towards 'loss of earning during laid up period', no compensation is awarded by the Tribunal. Considering the magnitude of the injuries suffered by the claimant, atleast three months is required to recuperate and get back to normal day to activities. In view of this Court enhancing the income to Rs.14,500/- per month, Rs.43,500/- (Rs.14,500/- x 3) is awarded under this head.

¶58

Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/-. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the claimant that it is on the lower side. Hence, I deem it appropriate to award additional Rs.25,000/- under this head.

¶59

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:3671 MFA No. 684 of 2022

¶60

Towards conveyance, food and nourishment, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/-, which does not call for interference. I deem it appropriate to retain the same.

¶61

Toward medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.11,103/- on the basis of the actual bills produced by the clamant, which does not call for interference.

¶62

Towards future medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/-, which does not call for interference. I deem it appropriate to retain the same.

¶63

In view of the above discussion, the

¶64

appellant/claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,55,603/- as against Rs.2,62,303/- awarded by the Tribunal, as mentioned in the table below:

¶65

Sl. No.	Head of compensation	Amount of compensation awarded
1	Loss of future income	Rs.2,61,000-00
2	Pain and suffering	Rs. 40,000-00
3	Conveyance, food and nourishment	Rs. 25,000-00
4	Medical expenses	Rs. 11.103-00
5	Loss of amenities of life	Rs. 50,000-00

¶66

10 -

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:3671 MFA No. 684 of 2022

¶68

6	Future medical expenses	Rs. 25,000-00
7	Loss of earning during laid up period	Rs. 43,500-00
	Total	Rs. 4,55,603-00

¶69

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶70

O R D E R

¶71

i) The appeal is allowed in part ;

¶72

ii) The impugned judgment & award dated 18^th November, 2021 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.1341/2020 is modified;

¶73

iii) The appellant-claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,55,603/as against Rs.2,62,303/- awarded by the Tribunal;

¶74

iv) The interest awarded by the tribunal at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.2,62,303/- is left undisturbed;

¶75

v) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with interest at 6% per annum by the 1^st respondent – Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment;

¶76

11 -

¶77

NC: 2024:KHC:3671 MFA No. 684 of 2022

¶78

vi) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant as per the terms of the tribunal upon proper verification;

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80

GSS

¶81

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62

Sri H S Kumar v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H S Kumar v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

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

Manivel R Vs Shashikanta Patra

Sri C Adisheshaiah Chalasani Vs Sri Reddappa

Smt. Sushila Vs P. Koushik Rao

Sri M Shivakumar Vs Sri Sudhakar K H

Sri Mainuddin @ Mainuddin Ansari Vs M/S Srs Travels

Hanumantharaju B K Vs Gangamma