Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Dharmapal

NOW REP BY THE LEGAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 5^TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, NO.228, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. …APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

DHARMAPAL, S/O. NANJUNDAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT SRIRAMPURA COLONY, PEMMANAHALLI POST, SOLURU HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:36132 MFA No. 687 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9283 of 2017 MFA No. 688 of 2018

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

RAMANGARA DISTRICT.

¶22

VINAY KUMAR, S/O. RANGASWAMY J.M., MAJOR, R/AT NO.A-139, CHICKKASWAMY LAYOUT, JARAGANAHALLI, J. P. NAGAR, 6^TH PHASE, BANGALORE-560 078.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI,ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 SERVED)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.3408/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI A.C.M.M. AND XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, M.A.C.T., COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,26,300/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A.

¶26

IN MFA NO. 9283/2017:

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

SRI. DHARMAPAL, SON OF NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT SRIRAMPURA COLONY, PEMMANAHALLI POST, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,

¶29

...APPELLANT

¶30

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI., ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

VINAY KUMAR, SON OF RANGASWAMY J M, RESIDING AT NO.139, CHIKKASWAMY LAYOUT,

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:36132 MFA No. 687 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9283 of 2017 MFA No. 688 of 2018

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

JARAGANAHALLI, J P NAGAR VI PHASE, BANGALORE-560 078.

¶37

RELIANCE GENERAL INSRUANCE CO. LTD., BALAJI ENCLAVE, NO.782, ABOVE BATA SHOWROOM, 16^TH MAIN, 2^ND STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 075.

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2, V/O DATED 16.11.2023 NOTICE TO R1 D/W)

¶40

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.3408/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ACMM, AND XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶41

IN MFA NO. 688/2018:

¶42

BETWEEN:

¶43

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BALAJI ENCLAVE, NO.782, ABOVE BATA SHOW ROOM, 16^TH MAIN, 2^ND STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 075,

¶44

NOW REP BY THE LEGAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 5^TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, NO.228, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:36132 MFA No. 687 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9283 of 2017 MFA No. 688 of 2018

¶46

4 -

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

...APPELLANT

¶49

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE)

¶50

AND:

¶51

GOPAL S/O SIDDAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT SRIRAPURA COLONY, PEMMANAHALLI POST, SOLURU HOBLI MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT

¶52

VINAY KUMAR, S/O RANGASWAMY J M, MAJOR R/AT NO.A-139, CHICKKASWAMY LAYOUT, JARAGANAHALLI J P NAGAR, 6^TH PHASE, BANGALORE-560 078.

¶53

...RESPONDENTS

¶54

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI., ADVOCATE, R2 SERVED)

¶55

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.3407/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI A.C.M.M. & XXIII A.S.C.J, BENGALURU.AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.41,500/- ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶56

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

¶57

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶58

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:36132 MFA No. 687 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9283 of 2017 MFA No. 688 of 2018

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶61

These appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 14.07.2017 passed by the XXI ACMM and XXIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru in MVC Nos.3407 of 2015 and 3408 of 2015.

¶62

M.F.A. No.687 of 2018 is filed by the insurance company against the judgment and award passed in MVC No.3408 of 2015 wherein it is contended that the petitioner in the said case met with an accident on 05.04.2015 and sustained fractures. The petitioner filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. But, the Tribunal considered the entire evidence on record and granted Rs.6,26,300/- with interest at 8% per annum. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred,

¶63

Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company contended that the petitioner examined P.Ws.2 and 3 and also examined P.W. 4, who is an eye witness to the occurrence. The petitioner-claimant is the pillion rider and while, he was proceeding in motorcycle, he met with an accident due to the negligent driving of the rider of the Tata Wingar vehicle bearing

¶64

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:36132 MFA No. 687 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9283 of 2017 MFA No. 688 of 2018

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

No.KA-05-AC-6885. There is delay of 4 days in lodging the complaint on 25.07.2015. The Tribunal erred in noticing that the insured vehicle was seized and IMV of the insured vehicle was conducted on 25.07.2015 i.e. after the lapse of more than three months from the date of incident. It is also sought to modify interest rate to 6% instead of 8% per annum.

¶67

M.F.A. No.9283 of 2017 is filed by the petitionerclaimant in MVC No.3408 of 2015 seeking enhancement of compensation passed by the Tribunal. It is stated that the petitioner was working as a coolie, aged 33 years, earning Rs.12,000/- per month. But, he has not produced any evidence to prove that he was earning such amount. He met with the accident in the year 2015 and as per the guidelines of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, his income is to be taken at Rs.9,000/- per month. The petitioner sustained the following injuries, which are grievous in nature :

¶68

“closed fracture mid 1/3 right femur, type IIIB comminuted fracture right patella, type IIIB open fracture right tibial condyle, type II open fracture middle phalanx middle finger, closed fracture 2^nd , 3^rd , 4^th metacarpal bone right hand and due the accidental injuries he has sustained the permanent disablement.”

¶69

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:36132 MFA No. 687 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9283 of 2017 MFA No. 688 of 2018

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

P.W.3-doctor has assessed the whole body disability of the petitioner at 21%. The petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 06.04.2015 and discharged on 10.04.2015. He was inpatient for 5 days, therefore this Court finds it reasonable to assess the disability at 21%. The Tribunal has taken the disability at the rate of 14% to the whole body observing the disability assessed by P.W.3 is on the higher side. The basis for reducing disability is not mentioned by the Tribunal and thus, this Court finds it reasonable to assess the disability at 21% as assessed by P.W.3 and the multiplier applicable is 16. Therefore, the loss of future income comes to Rs.3,62,880/(9,000 x 12 x 16 x 21%). This Court finds it reasonable to assess the loss of income during the laid up period for 6 months which comes to Rs.54,000/- (9,000 x 6). It is further reasonable to grant Rs.30,000/towards attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment charges. P.W.3 stated that the petitioner needs another surgery for removal of implants and it costs Rs.70,000/-. Therefore, the tribunal has granted Rs.60,000/- towards future medical expenses, which needs no interference. The compensation granted for pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of future amenities and happiness,

¶72

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:36132 MFA No. 687 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9283 of 2017 MFA No. 688 of 2018

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

stands good and hence, no need for interference. Therefore, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.8,19,779/from

¶75

Rs.6,23,600/- with interest at 6% per annum.

¶76

The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is

¶77

modified as under:

¶78

Heads	Amount in Rs.
1. Pain and suffering	80,000/-
2. Medical expenses	2,17,899/-
3. Loss of income during laid up period	54,000/-
4. Loss of future income	3,62,880/-
5. Loss of future amenities and happiness	15,000/-
6. attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment charges	30,000/-
7. future medical expenses	60,000/-
Total	8,19,779/-

¶79

The Tribunal considered the evidence and also the

¶80

documents and the evidence at Exhibits P1 to P5 and held that there is no negligence on the part of rider of motor cycle but there is negligence of driver of Tata Wingar vehicle, this Court

¶81

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:36132 MFA No. 687 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9283 of 2017 MFA No. 688 of 2018

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

no finds reason to interfere with the said finding. Therefore, interest rate if reduced from 8% to 6% per annum.

¶84

Ultimately, MFA No.687 of 2018 and MFA

¶85

No.9283/2018 are allowed in part. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.8,19,779/- with interest at 6% per annum within four weeks from the date of this order.

¶86

On such deposit the petitioner-claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it. The amount in deposit is to be transferred to the tribunal.

¶87

MFA No.688 of 2018 is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.3407 of 2015, wherein the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.41,500/- with interest at 8% per annum. The insurance company has sought to modify the rate of interest from 8% to 6% per annum on the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal. The petitioner-claimant in the said case has not filed

¶88

any appeal seeking enhancement in the compensation. Therefore, this appeal is also allowed and the interest rate is modified from 8% to 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The respondent-claimant is entitled

¶89

10 -

¶90

NC: 2025:KHC:36132 MFA No. 687 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 9283 of 2017 MFA No. 688 of 2018

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

for the of Rs.41,500/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of realisation. The appellant-insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount within one month from the date of order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the interest accrued on it. The amount in deposit is to be transferred to the Tribunal.

¶93

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶94

CS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Dharmapal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Dharmapal

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

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Naveen Kumar M @ Naveen

Shivanna H N Vs Madhav Naik

Chinnappa Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Mr Lathesh Vs Mr Balakrishna

T G Vadiraj Vs the Commissioner

Mr. Abdul Jabbar Vs Mr. Nazi Ahmmad