Sri S B Umesh Vs Reliance General Insurance

SRI S B UMESH S/O BETTASWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.73,3RD CROSS, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR, NEAR ST.JOHNS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, BYDRAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 091.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. JAYARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMTED, NO.19, RELIANCE CENTRE, WALCHAND HIRACHAND MARG, BALLARD ESTATE,MUMBAI-400 001 GEE PLAZ,AIRPORT ROAD, YERAWADA,PUNE-411 006 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,

¶14

Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

ALSO AT : REGIONAL OFFICE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.28, 5^TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, EAST WING, NEAR CITI BANK, M.G.ROAD,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:27107 MFA No. 1703 of 2015

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

BENGLAURU-560 001.

¶19

SHIVALINGAIAH K P S/O PUTTARAMAIAH, NO.1325, 2^ND STAGE, KAMALANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. RAKSHITHA S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 21.02.2022, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.621/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, 26^TH ACMM, (SCCH-09), MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 18^th November 2014, passed by the learned Judge, Court of Small Causes and M.A.C.T., Bengaluru (SCCH-09) (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.621/2013, seeking enhancement of

¶27

compensation.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:27107 MFA No. 1703 of 2015

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶31

referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶32

The brief facts of the case are that, on 05.06.2012, at about 6.30 p.m., claimant was going on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-02-EJ-3582. When he reached near Pooja Kalyana Mantapa, Magadi main road, Kamakshipalya, a car bearing registration No.KA-04-MC-2791, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle. As a result, claimant fell down and sustained fractures. He took treatment as an inpatient in Chitanya Hospital. He was a businessman and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident he has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, the claimant has prayed for awarding of compensation.

¶33

The respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent

¶34

No.1 is the insurer of the offending motorcycle. Respondent No.2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:27107 MFA No. 1703 of 2015

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Respondent No.1 filed its written statement denying the contentions of the claim petitioner and also denied its liability to pay the compensation due to breach of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. With these

¶38

reasons, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶39

From the rival contentions of the parties, the

¶40

Tribunal framed necessary issues.

¶41

The claimant to prove his case, examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 14 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-14. Respondent No.2 has not lead any oral or documentary evidence.

¶42

The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment, awarded the following amount of

¶43

compensation:

¶44

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Pain and suffering	35,000/-
Medical expenses	36,000/-

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:27107 MFA No. 1703 of 2015

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Attendant charges, nutritious expenses and transportation charges	3,000/-
Loss of future income due to permanent disability	1,01,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period	15,000/-
Loss of future amenities and unhappiness	10,000/-
Total	2,00,000/-

¶48

Being aggrieved by the said award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation.

¶49

8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer.

¶50

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate; The Tribunal has not considered the income of the claimant properly and the disability assessed is also on the lower side; The compensation awarded under other heads are also on the lower side. Hence, prayed for enhancement of the compensation.

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:27107 MFA No. 1703 of 2015

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-insurer submitted that the Tribunal has properly considered the case of the claimant and has awarded a just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for any interference by this Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶54

11. Following points arise for my determination:

¶55

(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? (ii) What order?

¶56

Point No.1 :

¶57

12. Fact of the accident is not in dispute. The

¶58

Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of driver of the car, which is not in dispute by either side. Hence, there is no need to reconsider the same.

¶59

13. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment assessed the age of the claimant as 44 years at the time of the accident, taken his income as Rs.6,000/- per month,

¶60

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:27107 MFA No. 1703 of 2015

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

applied the multiplier of `14', assessed the disability as

¶63

10% to the whole body and awarded the compensation.

¶64

14. On re-appreciating the evidence available on

¶65

record, the amount of compensation under some of the heads are on the lower side. As per Ex.P-7 - wound certificate, the claimant had sustained following injuries :

¶66

i) fracture of left acetabulum,

¶67

ii) fracture of superior and inferior ramus left with fracture of illus left,

¶68

iii) bilateral communited fracture of calcaneum.

¶69

PW-2 has treated the claimant. He assessed the disability suffered by the claimant as 45% to the left lower limb and 20% to the right ankle, and total disability assessed as 20% to the whole body. Considering the age, occupation and fractures sustained by the claimant, the permanent disability can be assessed as 15% to the whole body.

¶70

The claimant contended that he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, but he was unable to prove the

¶71

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:27107 MFA No. 1703 of 2015

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

same. Following the notional income chart prepared by

¶74

the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the income of the claimant is taken as Rs.7,000/- per month. Undisputedly, the age of the claimant was 44 years and the multiplier applicable is `14'.

¶75

For the aforesaid discussions, the claimant is

¶76

entitled to following amount of compensation :

¶77

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Pain and suffering	60,000/-
Medical expenses	36,000/-
Attendant expenses, special diet and conveyance charges	20,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period	21,000/-
(Rs.7,000/- x 3)
Loss of income due to permanent disability	1,76,400/-
(Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 14 x 15%)
Loss of amenities	25,000/-
Total	3,38,400/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement- Rounded off -	2,00,000/- 1,38,400/- *1,39,000/-*

¶78

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:27107 MFA No. 1703 of 2015

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

The claimant is also entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

¶81

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of compensation. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.

¶82

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

¶83

ORDER

¶84

i) The Appeal is allowed in part .

¶85

ii) The judgment and award dated 18^th November 2014, passed by the Judge, Court of Small Cases and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-09), in MVC No.621/2013, stands modified.

¶86

iii) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,39,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

¶87