Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal by the Insurer rejected; the Tribunal's Judgment and Award dated 15.07.2024 in MVC No.521/2022 left undisturbed; the amount in deposit directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement.

Issue for consideration

Whether, with the change in the Second Schedule relevant to Section 163-A of the MV Act, the discretion of the Courts, as read by the Apex Court to deviate from the structured formula, is taken away.

Court's answer

Though the Central Government proposed to substitute the Second Schedule (lump-sum compensation for fatal accidents/injuries and deletion of other heads), the requisite notification was never published in the Official Gazette; the Second Schedule was omitted only by the Motor Vehicles [Amendment] Act, 2019, brought into effect from 01.04.2022.

Ratio / Principle

Since the proposed change in the Second Schedule was not published in the Official Gazette, the discretion to deviate from the structured formula in appropriate cases, as exposited by the aforesaid Apex Court decisions (courts must not ordinarily deviate, but may do so in exceptional cases to render just and fair compensation), was available as of the date of the accident, viz. 16.03.2021.

Key takeaways

The Court finds no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's finding granting the indisputable medical-expense amount (99 bills, Ex. P15 series); the appeal stands rejected and the framed question is answered in favour of the claimants.ratio¶87

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Insurance — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.163-A no-fault liability; Second Schedule. An insurer challenged an MACT Mysuru award (Judgment and Award dt.15.07.2024, MVC No.521/2022) of Rs.18,41,500/- with 6% p.a. interest — including Rs.13,41,485/- towards medical expenses substantiated by 99 bills — payable to the parents of a motorcyclist fatally injured on 16.03.2021 in a collision with the insured scooter KA-11/U4110, contending that liability under S.163-A must be confined to the substituted Second Schedule amounts (Rs.5,00,000/- lump sum for death; Rs.25,000/- for injury without permanent disability). The Court held that although the Central Government proposed to substitute the Second Schedule and delete other heads, the requisite notification was never published in the Official Gazette, and the Second Schedule was omitted only with effect from 01.04.2022 by the Motor Vehicles [Amendment] Act, 2019. Consequently, on the date of the accident the courts retained the discretion — as read in the Apex Court's decisions (Sapna v. United India Insurance Co Ltd, (2008) 7 SCC 613, reiterating Abati Bezbaruah, (2003) 3 SCC 148: deviation from the structured formula permissible in exceptional cases to render just and fair compensation) — to deviate from the structured formula. Finding the medical-expense grant indisputable, the Court declined to interfere, rejected the appeal, and directed that the amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:23762-DB MFA No. 6102 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6102 OF 2024

(MV-D)

BETWEEN:

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD BEHIND LABOUR OFFICE, AKSHAY BANDAR, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE 570023

(REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER) (INSURER OF SCOOTER BEARING NO KA-11/U4110)

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SANMATHI E I.,ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

AND:

SMT SUNANDA C W/O SHIVAMURTHY R/AT NO 140 BASAVESHWARA NILAYA, 1ST MAIN, 6TH CROSS, B M SHREE NAGAR, METAGALI MYSURU 570016

SRI SHIVAMURTHY R Y S/O LATE RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO 140 BASAVESHWARA NILAYA, 1ST MAIN, 6TH CROSS, B

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23762-DB MFA No. 6102 of 2024

HC-KAR

M SHREE NAGAR, METAGALI MYSURU 570016

SRI MANJUNATHA M S/O MADAIAH MAJOR, R/O NO 88, 1ST BLOCK, NIVEDITHA NAGAR, MYSURU 570022

OWNER AND INSURED OF VEHICLE BEARING NO KA-11/U-4110

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SUMA K.,ADVOCATE)

MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.15.07.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.521/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MYSURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.18,41,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION INCLUDING INTERIM COMPENSATION IF ANY AWARDED.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23762-DB MFA No. 6102 of 2024

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

This appeal is by an Insurer, and the Insurer is aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 15.07.2024 in MVC No.521/2022 on the file of the Principal Small Causes And Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Mysuru [‘ the Tribunal’ ]. The Tribunal has granted Rs.13,41,485/- towards medical expenses to the claimants [the first and the second respondents] who are the parents of Sri Bharath H.S. [ the deceased ], under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, ' the MV Act' ].

It is not in dispute that the deceased met with a fatal accident on 16.03.2021 when he was traveling on his motor cycle bearing No.CRM-0989 and was hit by the scooter bearing No. KA-11/U4110. The deceased has suffered grievous injuries to his head, and he is admitted to M/s. Brindavan Hospital, Mysuru where he remained an in-patient

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23762-DB MFA No. 6102 of 2024

HC-KAR

until 10.05.2021. He has breathed his last after almost two months from the date of the accident. The claimants, to support their claim for reimbursement of medical expenses, have marked, apart from other records, 99 medical bills. It is not in dispute that the medical bills are for a total sum of Rs.13,41,485/-.

The Insurer contests its liability asserting that when an application under Section 163-A of the MV Act is filed, its liability must be confined to the compensation that is contemplated under the Second Schedule of the MV Act as of the date of the accident. Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, the learned counsel for the Insurer, submits that prior to the amendment of Second Schedule [ with effect from 09.08.2019], there was a structured formula for payment of compensation based on the specified annual income and the multiplier depending on the age of the deceased/injured, but with the amendment the structured formula is replaced stipulating that:

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23762-DB MFA No. 6102 of 2024

HC-KAR

[i] in the event of a fatal accident a lump sum of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be paid and that in the case of injury,

[ii] in case of injuries if there is no permanent disability a sum of Rs.25,000/-, and

[iii] in cases of injuries resulting in permanent disability, the sum that is equivalent to the percentage of disability is Rs.5,00,000/-.

The learned counsel submits that with this amendment any discretion that could have been exercised by the Courts is taken away.

Ms. Suma K., the learned counsel for the claimants, relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in Sapna v. United India Insurance Company Limited and Another¹ and a Division Bench of this

Court in Regional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited v. Vijay Balshiram Walunj and

1 (2008) 7 SCC 613

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23762-DB MFA No. 6102 of 2024

HC-KAR

Others² to canvas that discretion in the Courts to deviate from the structured formula, whenever it becomes necessary to grant just and reasonable compensation, is not taken away by the amendment.

Ms. Suma K. canvasses that as

enunciated by the Apex Court in its decision and followed by the Division Bench, the Tribunal is justified in granting indisputable amount spent by the first and the second respondents towards medical expenses when their son was hospitalized for a period of about two months after he suffered a head-injury in the accident. In rejoinder, Sri E.I. Sanmathi points out that the decision of the Apex Court as also a Coordinate Bench of this Court is prior to the change in the Second Schedule, and therefore, the question of discretion to go beyond the comprehensive amount must be examined in the light of the change that is brought in by the Legislature.

2 ILR 2012 KAR 335

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:23762-DB MFA No. 6102 of 2024

HC-KAR

In the light of the rival submissions, the

question for consideration is:

Whether this Court can opine that with the change in the Second Schedule relevant to Section 163-A of the MV Act, the discretion of the Courts, as read by the Apex Court to deviate from the structured formula, is taken away .

The Apex Court in Sapna v. United India

Insurance Company Limited and Another (s upra )

has reiterated its observation in the earlier decision

in Abati Bezbaruah vs. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India and Another³ and the Apex Court's opinion in the later judgment reads as under:

“11. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the payment of compensation on the basis of structured formula as provided for under the Second Schedule should not ordinarily be deviated from. Section 168 of the Motor

3 (2003) 3 SCC 148

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:23762-DB MFA No. 6102 of 2024

HC-KAR

Vehicles Act lays down the guidelines for determination of the amount of compensation in terms of Section 166 thereof. Deviation from the structured formula, however, as has been held by this Court, may be resorted to in exceptional cases. Furthermore, the amount of compensation should be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of each case.”

The underlining is by this Court

This proposition, which is reiterated in Sapna v.

United India Insurance Company Limited and

Another(Supra), is that the Courts must not ordinarily deviate from the structured formula provided under the Second Schedule, but deviation from the structured formula may be resorted to in exceptional cases.

Originally as introduced⁴ , the Second Schedule indeed provided for [a] No-fault liability compensation under Section 163-A of the MV Act

4 The Second Schedule is introduced as part of Section 163-A by Act No.54/1994

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:23762-DB MFA No. 6102 of 2024

HC-KAR

based on the income and the multiplier depending on the age of the concerned [b] and apart from other stipulations for payment of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/towards loss of consortium if the beneficiary is the spouse, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/towards medical expenses subject to actual expenses incurred before death supported by bills but not exceeding an amount of Rs.15,000/-.

The Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 163A of the MV Act , proposed to substitute⁵ this with the payment of compensation in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in case of a fatal accident, and in case of the accident resulting in permanent disability, such percentage of Rs.5,00,000/- as would be

5 The Central Government proposed the amendment to the Second Schedule with the stipulation that the substituted schedule shall come into effect from the date of publication in the Official Gazette.

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:23762-DB MFA No. 6102 of 2024

HC-KAR

commensurate with the percentage of disability as per Schedule-I of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, and in the case of minor injuries, a fixed sum of Rs.25,000/-. Further the Central Government, with this proposed substitution, also proposed to delete the provision for other payments. However, it remains indisputable that though the Second Schedule was proposed to be amended, the requisite notification was not published in the Official Gazette giving effect to the same, and the Second Schedule is omitted with the Motor Vehicles [Amendment] Act, 2019. This amendment Act is brought into effect from 01.04.2022.

The fulcrum of the Insurer's case is the proposed change in the Second Schedule which is not published in the Official Gazette. Therefore, the discretion to deviate from the structured formula in appropriate cases as exposited by the aforesaid decisions was available as of the date of the accident

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:23762-DB MFA No. 6102 of 2024

HC-KAR

viz . 16.03.2021. In the present case, as is observed earlier, the deceased suffered head injuries and was shifted to M/s. Brindavan Hospital where he remained an in-patient for about 2 months until 10.05.2021 when he breathed his last. The total 99 medical bills, which are exhibited as Ex. P15 series, indisputably is in a sum of Rs.13,41,500/-. This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to interfere with the Tribunal's finding and the appeal stands rejected answering the question framed in favour of the claimants.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement.

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

SA ct:sr