Sri v Murthy Vs Sri Munikrishna P

THE CHOLAMANDALAM, GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., UNIT NO.4, 9^TH FLOOR (LEVEL-6), GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX, 59^TH ‘C’ CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, 4^TH ‘M’ BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010. REP: BY ITS MANAGER.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. H.S. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1 SERVED AND UNPRESENTED)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:12012 MFA No. 8851 of 2015

¶20

NO.278/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.C.No.278/2014 dated 10.04.2015 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolar whereby the Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability and granted compensation of an amount of Rs.1,66,400/- to the appellant/ claimant. The claimant/appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶25

It is the case of the claimant that on 28.01.2014 at about 12.45 p.m., the claimant was crossing the main road near Clock Tower towards KSRTC bus stand at Kolar town. While he had crossed northern side road and was standing on open median to cross southern side road, at that time Auto rickshaw came from Clock Tower side at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, went to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the claimant. The claimant fell down and

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:12012 MFA No. 8851 of 2015

¶28

sustained grievous injuries. It is his case that he had sustained the disability, as per the evidence of the doctor he had sustained 36% of disability to the limb and 12% to the whole body. It is the case of the claimant that he was earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month and the Tribunal had taken the income at an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month and the disability at 8%.

¶29

Basing on the evidence, the Tribunal had granted

¶30

the compensation as per the table given below:

¶31

	Heads		Co	mpensation Awarded
1.	Pain and Sufferings	:	Rs.	25,000/-
2.	Medical Expenses	:	Rs.	65,000/-
3.	Incidental Charges	:	Rs.	2,000/-
4.	Loss of income during laid up period	:	Rs.	12,000/-
5.	Future loss of income due to disability	:	Rs.	61,400/-
6.	Conveyance	:	Rs.	1,000/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	1,66,400/-

¶32

Altogether the Tribunal had granted compensation

¶33

of an amount of Rs.1,66,400/-. Aggrieved thereby the appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12012 MFA No. 8851 of 2015

¶35

When it comes to the liability, the Tribunal had held that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal had fixed the liability on the owner of the vehicle.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ claimant submits that even though the driver of the offending vehicle is not having a valid driving license, the petitioner being a third party to the policy, the Insurance Company is still liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. He submits that under the head of pain and sufferings, the amount granted by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by the claimant are not reasonable. It is submitted that towards food, nourishment and attendant charges reasonable amount is not granted and when it comes to the income, the accident had taken place in the year 2014, the Tribunal had taken the income at Rs.4,000/- which is on the lower side.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/ Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had granted

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:12012 MFA No. 8851 of 2015

¶40

reasonable compensation and rightly held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal.

¶41

Having heard the counsels on either side, perused the material on record. When it comes to the liability, as rightly argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ claimant, though there is no valid driving license to the driver of the offending vehicle, the claimant being a third party, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others¹ still the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Then coming to the compensation, as per the evidence available on record he had sustained one grievous injury, in that view of the matter, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering . The Tribunal had granted amounttowards medical expenses basing on the evidence on record and no interference is called for. When it comes to food,

¶42

nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges as the

¶43

1 (2004) 3 SCC 297

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:12012 MFA No. 8851 of 2015

¶46

claimant was in the hospital for 4 days, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.4,000/- . Then coming to the loss of income during the laid up period , as this is an accident of the year

¶47

2014, this Court is taking the income at an amount of Rs.8,500/- and for 3 months it would come to an amount of Rs.25,500/- . Then coming to the future loss of income the Tribunal without any basis had taken 8% as disability. When the doctor had opined that there is 36% disability to the limb and 12% to the whole body, this Court is inclined to take the income at an amount of Rs.8,500/- per month and 12% as disability then (Rs.8,500x 12x16x12/100) the loss of future income would come to an amount of Rs.1,95,840/-.

¶48

In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M. MALATHI AND ANOTHER² , the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Legal Expenses.

¶49

The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads:

¶50

2 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:12012 MFA No. 8851 of 2015

¶53

	Heads		Co A	mpensation warded by Tribunal	Compensation Awarded by this Court
1.	Pain and Suffering	:	Rs.	25,000/-	40,000/-
2.	Medical Expenses	:	Rs.	65,000/-	65,000/-
3.	Incidental charges	:	Rs.	2,000/-	-
4.	Loss of income during laid up period(8500X3)	:	Rs.	12,000/-	25,500/-
5.	Future loss of income due to disability (8500X12X16X12/100)	:	Rs.	61,400/-	1,95,840/-
6.	Food, nourishment and attendant charges		Rs.	-	4,000/-
7.	Conveyance	:	Rs.	Rs.1,000/-	-
8.	Legal expenses		Rs.	-	10,000/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	1,66,400/-	3,40,340/-
	Enhanced	:	Rs.		1,73,940/-

¶54

All together, the claimant in MVC.No.278/2014 is entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.3,40,340/- . Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is Allowed-in-part by enhancing the compensation amount from an amount of Rs.1,66,400/- to Rs.3,40,340/-.

¶55

i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶56

ii. The compensation amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company and can recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12012 MFA No. 8851 of 2015

¶58

iii. The respondent No.2 - insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

¶59

iv. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶60

v. No costs.

¶61

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶62

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶63

BN

¶64

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 9

Sri v. Murthy v Sri Munikrishna P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. Murthy v Sri Munikrishna P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Raju K S Vs Sri Shakaregowda

Mr. a. K. Ejaj Ahmed Vs Mr. Irshad Ahmed

Smt Soujanya Vs Sri Jayanth K.

The Branch Manager Vs Kumari Amrutha

Sri Narayanaswamy Vs Sri Prakashan C

Smt Preethi H S Vs Prathap Kumar C