Smt Gowramma Vs Reliance Gen Ins Co. Ltd.

SMT GOWRAMMA W/O CHIKKAMARI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS REP BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN AND HUSBAND SRI CHIKKAMARI GOWDA S/O LATE SIDDE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A AREKADAKALU VILLAGE THATTEKERE MARALAVADI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DIST-562117

¶11

(BY SRI. PRAKASH M H.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

2 -

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC:47058-DB MFA No. 1636 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1198 of 2024

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

AND:

¶17

RELIANCE GEN INS CO LTD OFFICE AT 2^ND FLOOR, SM TOWERS 11^TH MAIN ROAD, 3^RD BLOCK

¶18

JAYANAGARA BANGALORE-560011 REP BY ITS MANAGER.

¶19

SRI MARIYAPPA REDDY N S/O NAGARAJ C AGE MAJOR R/A DEVARA KAGGALAHALLI VILLAGE SAMETHANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST CHIKKATHIRUPATHI MAIN ROAD HOSAKOTE BANGALORE-560027.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.10.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.688/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCH-4), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

3 -

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:47058-DB MFA No. 1636 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1198 of 2024

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

IN MFA NO. 1198/2024

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED OFFICE AT 2^ND FLOOR, S M TOWERS 11^TH MAIN ROAD, 3^RD BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011 ALSO AT RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NO.28, 5^TH FLOOR, SOUTHERN PORTION, EAST WING, CENTURY BUILDING, M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL.

¶29

...APPELLANT

¶30

(BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL.,ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O CHIKKAMARI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS (SINCE, CLAIMANT IN UNCONSCIOUS AND NOT ORIENTED, SUFFERING MENTAL INFIRMITY AND HENCE REPRESENTED HER HUSBAND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN) CHIKKAMARI GOWDA S/O LATE SIDDE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/A AREKADAKALU VILLAGE THATTEKERE, MARALAVADI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562121.

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:47058-DB MFA No. 1636 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1198 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

SRI MARIYAPAP REDDY N S/O NAGARAJA C, MAJOR R/A DEVARA KAGGALAHALLI VILLAGE SAMETHANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST CHIKKATHIRUPATHI MAIN ROAD HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU-27.

¶37

...RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. PRAKASH M H.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶39

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.10.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.688/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, SCCH-4, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.52,51,387/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶40

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47058-DB MFA No. 1636 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1198 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶45

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶46

These appeals are against the judgment and award dated 07.10.2023 in MVC No.688/2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, the Tribunal ]. The Tribunal has awarded to the claimant a total sum of Rs.52,51,387/- along with interest at 6% per annum under the following heads:

¶47

1.	Loss of future income	Rs. 23,40,000/-
2.	Loss of future prospects	Rs. 5,85,000/-
3.	Conveyance Charges	Rs. 50,000/-
4.	Food and nourishment	Rs. 1,00,000/-
5.	Medical Expenses	Rs. 5,72,387/-
6.	Loss of amenities	Rs. 2,00,000/-
7.	One attendant charge for lifetime	Rs.14,04,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs.52,51,387/-

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:47058-DB MFA No. 1636 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1198 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

The Tribunal has stipulated that 50% of

¶51

the award must be released to the Claimant and the remaining deposited with any nationalised bank for three years. The Claimant and the Insurer of the twowheeler involved in the accident have filed their respective appeals. The Claimant's appeal is in MFA No.1636/2024, and the Insurer's appeal is in MFA No.1198/2024.

¶52

The Claimant and the Insurer, for reasons of convenience, are referred to as such in this judgment. This Court in the Insurer’s appeal has granted stay of the Tribunal's judgment and award subject to deposit of 50% of the award amount with the Tribunal, and subsequently, the claimant is permitted to withdraw Rs.20,00,000/- out of the amount in deposit. This Court must also record that there is no dispute that the claimant while returning from work on 27.12.2021 [in the evening] has met with an accident resulting in injuries to her head and

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:47058-DB MFA No. 1636 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1198 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

she is hospitalized from the date of the accident till 07.03.2022 i.e., for over two months undergoing decompressive craniectomy surgery .

¶56

The Tribunal, while answering whether

¶57

the rider of the motor vehicle insured with the Insurer was negligent, has found that the rider was indeed negligent and has therefore fastened the liability on the Insurer to pay compensation. The Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.23,40,000/- towards loss of future income and another sum of Rs.5,85,000/- towards loss of future prospects taking the claimant's disability at 100% and her monthly income in a sum of Rs.15,000/- and capitalizing the annual income with ' 13' as the multiplier with an addition of 25% of the annual income towards future prospects. The Tribunal has also awarded attendant charges to the claimant at Rs.9,000/- per month multiplying it by '13'.

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:47058-DB MFA No. 1636 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1198 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Sri Ashok Patil, the learned counsel for

¶61

the Insurer, submits that this Court must intervene with the Tribunal's finding on negligence and also on the quantum of compensation. On the ground of negligence, the learned counsel submits that the accident is because the claimant was abruptly crossing the road with no indication.

¶62

On the quantum of compensation, apart from the Tribunal's finding on the claimant's permanent disability, Sri Ashok Patil submits that the Tribunal could not have taken the claimant's age as '48' only because of the entries in the Aadhar card when the medical records conclusively establish that she was ‘55’ as on the date of the accident and in that event, the multiplier could not have been '13' but '11'. The learned counsel also submits that even otherwise the addition towards future earnings, if the claimant is aged 55, cannot be 25% but could only be 10%.

¶63

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:47058-DB MFA No. 1636 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1198 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Sri Prakash M H, the learned counsel for

¶66

the claimant, submits that [a] the doctor is categorical in stating that the claimant is bed ridden even in October 2022, [b] she had a tracheostomy tube, PEG tube, an indwelling urinary catheter with bed soars on the lower back, [c] she had significant swelling at craniectomy site on the left side of the head, [d] spasticity in all the four limbs [e] paralysis on the right side and [f] bone flap was placed in abdomen, and therefore, the Tribunal is justified in opining that there is 100% disability.

¶67

Sri Prakash M H proposes to contend that the Tribunal is justified in computing the loss of future prospects taking the age of the injured at 48 years and addition towards future prospects at 25%, but the learned counsel does not press the issue given the oral evidence on record. On the question of negligence, the learned counsel invites this Court's

¶68

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:47058-DB MFA No. 1636 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1198 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

attention to the evidence of PW.3, the claimant's son who was with her at the time of the accident.

¶71

In the light of these rival submissions, the

¶72

appeal must stand disposed of answering whether this Court must interfere with the Tribunal's finding on negligence and on quantum of compensation. The claimant's son, Sri Siddesh, is examined as PW.3. He is categorical in his evidence about these aspects. He and his mother were returning home with their cattle after finishing the work in the field. The mother was ahead of him by about 40ft. when the rider of the motorcycle coming behind hit her resulting in head injuries. He shifted his mother to a hospital because of the severe injuries suffered, and therefore, he could not immediately lodge the first information but he has lodged the information with the Police on the next day. This witness has been cross-examined to test the veracity of the statement that he was present at the time of the accident and that the accident

¶73

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:47058-DB MFA No. 1636 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1198 of 2024

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

occurred because the claimant has suddenly crossed the road.

¶76

This Court must opine that the witness, in identifying the location and denying the suggestion, has withstood the cross-examination. When his evidence is examined on the scale of preponderance of probabilities, his presence at the time of the accident is established, and this adds credence to his evidence that the accident is because the rider of the two-wheeler was rash and negligent. The rider is also examined on behalf of the Insurer. In his chief examination, the rider has only stated that there is a false claim without giving details of the accident. Crucially, he has admitted that the width of the road is between 8ft. and 10ft. On appreciation of this evidence, this Court is not persuaded to take exception with the Tribunal's finding on the reason for the accident, and the first question is answered accordingly .

¶77

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:47058-DB MFA No. 1636 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1198 of 2024

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

The undisputed fact is that the claimant is hospitalised for over two months, and she has undergone Decompressive Craniotomy surgery and she was placed on tracheostomy and PEG tubes and an indwelling urinary catheter. The doctor's evaluation in October 2022 reads thus:

¶80

HermRS Score is of category 5. This amounts to a disability of more than 80%. This disability pertains to the whole body and is permanent. Also, she requires 2 more surgeries pertaining to the brain, to be done at earliest. One is to replace/revise the shunt tube which appears to have stopped working. Another surgery is to cover the bony defect.

¶81

The doctor has been cross-examined at length on the procedure that is followed in the claimant's evaluation including the report filed by the Senior Neuro Psychologist. Sri Ashok Patil, relying upon this cross-examination, endeavours to persuade this Court to opine that the permanent disability cannot

¶82

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:47058-DB MFA No. 1636 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1198 of 2024

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

be over 80%. This Court observes that there cannot be any dispute in the light of this doctor's evidence and the medical records produced that the claimant has 100% disability and therefore there is no reason for interference with the Tribunal's finding.

¶85

The Tribunal has relied upon the entries in the Aadhar card to opine that the claimant is aged 48 years as on the date of the accident, but the entries in the Aadhar card cannot be accepted as proof of age. The entries in the Aadhar card are overwhelmed by the medical evidence, which shows that the claimant was aged 55 years. These are material facts not only on account of the multiplier, which is to be adopted but also the percentage that must be added to future prospects. If the loss of future earning with future prospects is computed retaining the income at Rs.15,000/- per month in terms of the Schedule awarded for Lok Adalath with the disability at 100% and applying the multiplier of

¶86

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:47058-DB MFA No. 1636 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1198 of 2024

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

'11' and future prospects at 10%, the claimant will be entitled to a sum of Rs.21,78,000/-. The computation

¶89

of the loss of income is as under:

¶90

Details for Computa Earning	tion of Capacit	Loss of Future y
MonthlyIncome		Rs.15,000/-
Addition towards Future Prospects	10%	Rs.1,500/-
Monthly Income + FutureProspects		Rs.16,500/-
Annual Income		Rs. 1,98,000/-
Percentage of Disability	100%	Rs. 1,98,000/-
Multiplier	11
Loss of Earning Capacity		Rs.21,78,000/-

¶91

The claimant in addition will also be entitled to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards the conveyance, food, nourishment and medical expenses and loss of amenities. The Tribunal has assessed the expenses towards future attendant charges at Rs.9,000/- but this Court must opine that it is exaggerated because the amount awarded is towards the expenditure that is yet to be incurred and she is also being given the benefit of interest on

¶92

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:47058-DB MFA No. 1636 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1198 of 2024

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

such amount. As such, this Court is of the view that a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month with capitalisation applying the multiplier ‘ 11 ’ will result in just compensation towards attendant charges. The claimant is entitled for attendant charges at Rs.3,96,000/- [Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 11].

¶95

The next question is whether there should be any additions for pain and suffering and future medical expenses. The claimant has produced no evidence to justify that her family members will have to incur a particular amount. In the circumstance, this Court is of the view that the claimant must be admitted to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on each of these heads. In the light of the afore, the claimant will be entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs. 36,96,387/- as against Rs.52,51,387/- awarded by the Tribunal. The comparative table is as under:

¶96

16 -

¶97

NC: 2025:KHC:47058-DB MFA No. 1636 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1198 of 2024

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

	By the Tribunal	By this Court
Loss of future income	Rs.23,40,000/-	Rs.21,78,000/-
Loss of future prospects	Rs.5,85,000/-
Pain and suffering	-	Rs.1,00,000/-
Medicalexpenses	Rs.5,72,387/-	Rs.5,72,387/-
Future medical expenses	-	Rs.1,00,000/-
Attendant charges	Rs.14,04,000/-	Rs.3,96,000/-
Conveyance charges	Rs. 50,000/-	Rs. 50,000/-
Food and nourishment	Rs.1,00,000/-	Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss ofamenities	Rs.2,00,000/-	Rs.2,00,000/-
Total	Rs.52,51,387/-	*Rs.36,96,387/-*

¶100

In the light of the afore, the following

¶101

ORDER

¶102

[A] The appeal in MFA No.1636/2024 by the claimant is dismissed.

¶103

[B] The appeal in MFA No.1198/2024 is allowed in part and the claimant is awarded a total sum of Rs. 36,96,387/- as against Rs.52,51,387/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% pa

¶104

17 -

¶105

NC: 2025:KHC:47058-DB MFA No. 1636 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 1198 of 2024

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.

¶108

[B] The insurer shall deposit the amount excluding amount already deposited within eight weeks from today.

¶109

[C] The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal along with its records.

¶110

[D] The Tribunal is directed to disburse the amount so that the claimant receives 75% of the compensation awarded with interest thereof and the remaining amount [25% of the compensation] is invested in a nationalised bank for three years.

¶111

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶112

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶113

NV

Smt Gowramma v. Reliance Gen Ins Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gowramma v. Reliance Gen Ins Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Hanumanth K Bhajantri Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nataraju N L Vs the State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Smt.Sandhya V.K.

The Depo Manager Vs Megha K R

Nalina. S Vs Udaya Kumar

Sri Vijaya Muni B Vs the State of Karnataka