Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Shanthala P Anchan

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE MAXIMUS COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, 4th FLOOR , LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD, OPPOSITE KMC COLLEGE MANGALURU 575 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶17

ALSO AT RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO. 28, 5th FLOOR, SOUTHERN PORTION EAST WING CENTENARY BUILDING,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21200-DB MFA No. 8587 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 4432 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

M.G ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001 REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL

¶21

…APPELLANT

¶22

(BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶23

SMT. SHANTHALA P ANCHAN W/O PURUSHOTHAMA ANCHAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO. 6-155/2(5) RAYARA CHAVADI SARALA PADE NEAR MUKYA PRANA TEMPLE, BADDAKATTE , BANTWAL KASABA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK 574 211

¶24

MR. GREGORY MIRANDA S/O AMBROSE MIRANDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT KURYODI HOUSE, MALADY VILLAGE, PUNJALKATTE, BELTHANGADY TALUK 574 221

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶27

R2 IS SERVED)

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21200-DB MFA No. 8587 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 4432 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.03.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.535/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, MANGALURU D.K., AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.20,13,000/WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶31

IN MFA NO. 4432/2023

¶32

BETWEEN:

¶33

SMT SHANTALA P ANCHAN W/O PURUSHOTHAMA ANCHAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO.6-155/2(5) RAYARA CHAVADI SARALA PADE NEAR MUKHYA PRANA TEMPLE BADDAKATTE BANTAWAL KASABA VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK D K DIST PIN 574 211

¶34

...APPELLANT

¶35

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G.,ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

MR GREGORY MIRANDA S/O AMBROSE MIRANDA AGED 40 YEARS RESIDING AT KURYODI HOUSE MALADY VILAGE PUNJALKATTE BELTHANGADY TALUK D K DISTRCTI PIN 574 221

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:21200-DB MFA No. 8587 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 4432 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD BRANCH OFFICE: MAXIMUS COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD OPP KMC COLLEGE MANGALURU D K DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER PIN 575 001

¶42

...RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶44

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.03.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO. 535/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, MANGALURU D.K., PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21200-DB MFA No. 8587 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 4432 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶50

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

¶51

These appeals are by the claimant and the Insurer in M.V.C. No.535/2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada [for short, ' the Tribunal' ] calling in question the Judgment and Award dated 31.03.2023. The Insurer’s appeal is in M.F.A. No.8587/2023 and the injured – claimant’s appeal is in M.F.A. No.4432/2023. The Tribunal, by the impugned Judgment and Award dated 31.03.2023 has awarded a total sum of Rs.20,12,574/- under the following heads while awarding interest @ 9% per annum.

¶52

1.	Pain and Suffering	Rs.1,00,000-00
2.	Loss of Income During laid up period	Rs.75,000-00
3.	Loss of Amenities	Rs.1,00,000-00
4.	Compensation for Permanent Disability	Rs.7,50,000-00
5.	Medical Bills	Rs.3,94,771-00
6.	Cost of Prosthesis and maintenance	Rs.5,62,803-00
7.	Conveyance	Rs.15,000-00

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21200-DB MFA No. 8587 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 4432 of 2023

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

8.	Attendant Charges,	Rs.15,000-00
	Food and Nourishment
	_Total _	_Rs.20,12,574/- _

¶56

The undisputed facts are that the

¶57

claimant, aged about 37 years as of the date of the accident, has suffered amputation of left leg below knee as a consequence of the injuries suffered in such accident. The claimant contends that she was crossing a State Highway [B.C. Road - Kadoor] at Jakribettu Junction when the accident occurred. The Insurer, as canvassed by Mr. Ashok N. Patil [ the learned counsel for the Insurance Company ] is aggrieved by the Tribunal's finding that the driver of the Tipper was solely responsible for the accident. According to Mr. Ashok N. Patil, the Tribunal should have apportioned negligence between the claimant and the driver of the Tipper.

¶58

Mr. Ashok N. Patil canvasses that if the appellant seeks interference on this ground, it also seeks interference with the Tribunal’s order on the

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21200-DB MFA No. 8587 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 4432 of 2023

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

rate of interest. It is thus clarified that the Insurer is not aggrieved by the compensation awarded under different heads. However, Mr. Ravishankar Shastry G., the learned counsel for the claimant, submits that there must be an enhancement in the compensation awarded towards [a] Permanent Disability, [b] Pain and Suffering and [c] Loss of Amenities without interfering with the Tribunal's finding on the negligence or the claimant's right to receive compensation with interest @ 6% per annum.

¶62

These rival contentions present the following question for consideration:

¶63

Whether this Court must interfere with the Tribunal’s findings on the negligence and the quantum of compensation .

¶64

Mr. Ashok N. Patil, denying the efficacy of the Spot Sketch [ Exh. P8 ] and relying upon the claimant’s statement in her cross examination on 09.02.2021, submits that the claimant was not

¶65

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:21200-DB MFA No. 8587 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 4432 of 2023

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

careful as is required of any person crossing a Highway from the side road. The learned counsel elaborates that the accident has occurred at the centre of the road, and if the accident is at the centre of the road, the claimant, who admits in her cross examination that she had seen the Tipper at a distance of 1 Km, should have stopped her vehicle and not crossed. The learned counsel also submits that this Court must note the fact that the claimant in her cross examination admits that she hit the left of the front side of the Tipper and this shows that the accident was at the centre of the State Highway and not at the edge of the road as is contested.

¶68

Mr. Ravishankar Shastry G. argues that the driver of the Tipper was under a greater onus to observe caution because he had to cross the junction and should have slowed down the vehicle. The learned counsel submits that the Court must read conjointly the Spot Sketch and the IMV Report in

¶69

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:21200-DB MFA No. 8587 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 4432 of 2023

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

testing the Tribunal's opinion that the driver of the Tipper was solely negligent and responsible for the accident.

¶72

The rival submissions, on the question of negligence, is examined in the light of the undisputed facts and the rival submissions. The undisputed facts are that the State Highway at the Junction has a straight path and the claimant was crossing this Highway from a side road. The claimant has also stated in her cross examination that she hit the left of the front side of the Tipper. These undisputed circumstances must be read with the Spot Sketch. It is seen from the Spot Sketch that the accident is at the edge of the State Highway [ i.e., to the left of the Tipper on the State Highway].

¶73

This Court must observe that if the

¶74

probative value of the Sketch is to be undermined by the Insurer, the claimant should have been crossexamination on the Insurer’s interpretation thereof. It

¶75

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:21200-DB MFA No. 8587 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 4432 of 2023

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

was imperative upon the Insurer to put to the claimant [ who is examined as PW1 ] that the sketch does not depict the place of the accident correctly. The claimant’s case that she saw the Tipper at a distance of 1 Km only underscores that the driver was driving fast and although he was approaching a junction, the driver should have slowed down. This Court, on a holistic reading of all the circumstances and the fact that the driver of the Tipper is charge sheeted, is not persuaded to find that the Tribunal's finding on the driver of the Tipper being negligent is either perverse or irregular or contrary to the evidence. The first part of the question that arises for consideration is answered accordingly.

¶78

Mr. Sri Ravishankar Shastry G. submits that this Court must enhance compensation towards Permanent Disability taking the average income of the claimant as per Exbs. P.17, 18 and 19, which are Income Tax Returns filed for the Assessment Years

¶79

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:21200-DB MFA No. 8587 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 4432 of 2023

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

between 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. He submits that the claimant's average annual income in terms of these returns will be in a sum of Rs.2,79,256/-, but the Tribunal has taken only a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶82

The Tribunal has reasoned that it has not attached importance to the last annual returns viz ., annual returns for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on the ground that it is for the year in which the accident is occurred, but the returns are filed on 16.11.2017 much before the date of the accident [02.01.2018]. The settled practice when Income Tax Returns for the relevant years are filed is to take average income so that there is just and reasonable compensation. The Tribunal has erred in overlooking the settled norm, and therefore, the compensation towards Permanent Disability must be reworked by taking the average income of the claimant at Rs.2,79,256/-.

¶83

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:21200-DB MFA No. 8587 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 4432 of 2023

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

Mr. Ravishankar Shastry G. next submits that there must be addition towards Future Prospects because the claimant admittedly was aged below 40 years and the appropriate addition towards Future Prospects must be at 40% and this is a canvas which Mr. Ashok N. Patil can controvert. Mr. Ravishankar Shastry’s next submission on the claimant’s disablement is that the Tribunal, with the claimant having suffered amputation of right leg below knee, could not have taken the disability at 25%, especially when according to Schedule I of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, amputation below knee would, in the minimum, result in 50% Disability.

¶86

Mr. Ravishankar Shastry G. argues that it is brought on record beyond reproach that the claimant was a trained dancer who was imparting training to students for years and was also engaged in conducting programs, but with the amputation, the claimant has suffered a higher degree of

¶87

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:21200-DB MFA No. 8587 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 4432 of 2023

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

functional disability. The learned counsel implores to consider that in appropriate cases, the Courts have taken Disablement even at 100% based on the vocation of the concerned.

¶90

Indeed, the claimant is shown to be a trained dancer imparting training lessons to the students, but for the purposes of just and reasonable compensation with the addition of Future Prospects and also the other attending circumstances, this Court is not persuaded to take a higher percentage of Disability than 50%. The Tribunal has awarded just compensation both under Pain and Suffering and Loss of Amenities in granting Rs.1,00,000/- under each of these heads and this does not call for any interference, but this Court must interfere with the rate of interest.

¶91

The Computation determined by this Court is as follows:

¶92

14 -

¶93

NC: 2025:KHC:21200-DB MFA No. 8587 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 4432 of 2023

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

Computation towards Loss of Future Income because of Permanent Disability

¶96

Annual Income	Rs.2,79,256.00
Addition Towards Future Prospects at 40%	Rs.1,11,702.40
Annual Income with addition towards Future prospects	Rs.3,90,958.40
Percentage of Disability and therefore Deduction @ 50%	Rs.1,95,479.20
Multiplier	15
Total	*Rs. 29,32,188.00*

¶97

The comparative table of the compensation awarded

¶98

by the Tribunal and enhanced by this Court reads as

¶99

under.

¶100

*Sl.* *Nos*	*Particulars*	*By the Tribunal*	*By this Court*
1.	Pain and Suffering	Rs.1,00,000-00	Rs.1,00,000/-
2.	Loss of Income During laid up period	Rs.75,000-00	Rs.75,000/-
3.	Loss of Amenities	Rs.1,00,000-00	_Rs.1,00,000/- _
4.	Compensation for Permanent Disability	Rs.7,50,000-00	*Rs.29,32,188/-*
5.	Medical Bills	Rs.3,94,771-00	_Rs.3,94,771/- _
6.	Cost of Prosthesis and maintenance	Rs.5,62,803-00	Rs.5,62,803/-
7.	Conveyance	Rs.15,000-00	_Rs.15,000/- _
8.	Attendant	Rs.15,000-00	_Rs.15,000/- _

¶101

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:21200-DB MFA No. 8587 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 4432 of 2023

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

Charges, Food
and Nourishment
*Total*	*Rs.20,12,574/-*	*Rs.41,94,762/-*
*Enhancement*		*Rs.21,82,188/-*

¶104

In view of the settled proposition that unless exceptional circumstances are brought down, the Courts will not grant a person a higher rate of interest. The claimant will be entitled to rework compensation in terms of this Court's order at the rate of 6% per annum. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶105

ORDER

¶106

a. The appeals are disposed of granting to the claimant compensation in a sum of Rs.41,94,762/- [including enhancement in a sum of Rs.21,82,188/- ] along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum stipulating that the Insurer [ the appellant in MFA No. 8587/2023 ] shall deposit the amount in terms of this award, excluding

¶107