Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Rajan Pandiyan

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, 5TH FLOOR EAST WING CENTENARY BUILDING M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 BY ITS MANAGER (L & TP CLAIMS).

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SRI H.S. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶16

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

AND:

¶18

RAJAN PANDIYAN AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O. PANDIYAN RESIDENT OF NO.23, SANGAM ROAD KAMARAJ ROAD CROSS BENGALURU-560 042.

¶19

K.N.P VADIVELU MAJOR S/O. PALANIYANDI RESIDENT OF NO.7, RCC 200/201 SHANKAR MUTT ROAD, S.G.MUTT ROAD CHAMARAJAPET

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:30118-DB MFA No. 9202 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 105 of 2016

HC-KAR

BENGALURU-560 018.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA E.P., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; VIDE C/O DATED 11-10-2022, NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶26

¶27

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30-6-2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.3632 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH15), AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.19,25,000/- TOGETHER WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE REALISATION IN ITS ENTIRETY FROM 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶28

IN MFA.CROB NO.105/2016

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

MR. RAJAN PANDIYAN S/O. SRI PANDYAN AGED 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.23, SANGAM ROAD KAMRAJ ROAD CROSS BENGALURU - 560 042

¶31

...CROSS OBJECTOR

¶32

(BY SRI RAVISHANKAR S.S., ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND:

¶34

THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. NO.28, EAST WING 5TH FLOOR CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶35

SRI K.N.P VADIVELU S/O. PALANIYANDI

¶36

3 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:30118-DB MFA No. 9202 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 105 of 2016

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

RESIDING AT NO.7, RCC 200-201 SHANKAR MUTT ROAD S.G. MUTT ROAD CHAMRAJPET BENGALURU - 560 018.

¶40

...RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI LINGARAJ H.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; VIDE C/O DATED 28-1-2025, NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶42

¶43

THIS MFA.CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.3632 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶44

THIS MFA AND MFA.CROB ARE COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶45

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶46

and

¶47

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶48

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶49

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶50

MFA No.9202/2015 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 30.06.2015 passed in MVC No.3632/2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of

¶51

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30118-DB MFA No. 9202 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 105 of 2016

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Small Causes, Bengaluru (for short, 'Tribunal') on the ground of quantum, whereas, MFA.Crob.No.105/2016 is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal for enhancement of compensation.

¶54

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.

¶55

Brief facts of the claimant case before the Tribunal are as under:-

¶56

On 27.04.2009, at about 6.00 p.m., claimant-Rajan Pandiyan was travelling in a taxi bearing registration No.KA-03 D-4022 on NH-7, Bengaluru-Devanahalli Road and when he came near Bettahalasuru, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-01 AE-2235 came in high speed in rash and negligent manner and without any indication, took a turn towards NH-7 and during the process, the lorry driver lost control and dashed against the taxi, due to which, the claimant suffered grevious injuries all over his body. Hence, a complaint was lodged, which led to filing of FIR and investigation. In this regard, the claimant filed claim petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.19,25,000/- with 8% interest p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶57

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30118-DB MFA No. 9202 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 105 of 2016

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Learned counsel Sri H.S. Lingaraj for the Insurance company contended that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the claimant failed to prove the actual reimbursement/ medical facility availed by him from medi claim policy, contrary to the purpose for which, this Court had remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. Further, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the defence taken by the Insurance company in right perspective. The Tribunal granted higher amount of compensation under the head 'medical expenses' and the claimant has failed to prove the actual amount of reimbursement availed by him. It is further contended that the Tribunal has granted exorbitant interest of 8% p.a. on the compensation and it has to be reduced to 6% p.a. Thus, he prayed to allow the appeal.

¶60

Per contra , learned counsel Sri Raghavendra E.P. for the claimant contended that the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under the head 'pain and sufferings', which is on the lower side. Infact, the claimant sustained diffuse axonal injury, depressed fracture of left occipital bone, contusion of brain over parietal & frontal lobes with SDH and Abrasion over left fore arm. Further, the Tribunal has granted lesser compensation under the heads 'loss of income during laid up period', 'attendant charges',

¶61

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30118-DB MFA No. 9202 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 105 of 2016

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

'conveyance', 'future medical expenses', 'loss of amenities and comfort' and 'permanent physical impairment'. The Tribunal also considered disability at 20%, though the Doctor issued disability certificate to the claimant at 88.83% to the whole body. Hence, he prayed to allow the Cross objection appeal.

¶64

We have perused the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal. The only point that arises for our consideration in the appeal is:-

¶65

"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for any interference or reduction?

¶66

After hearing learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perusing the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable, which is on the lower side, for the reason that the Tribunal has not considered loss of promotional aspects of the claimant and the Tribunal without considering the material on record has granted a compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- towards 'medical expenses'.

¶67

As per the wound certificate Ex-P7, the claimant sustained diffuse axonal injury, depressed fracture of left occipital bone,

¶68

7 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:30118-DB MFA No. 9202 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 105 of 2016

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

contusion of brain over parietal and frontal lobes with SDH and Abrasion over left fore arm and as per oral evidence of PW-3 -Dr. Arjun Srivatsa, the claimant suffered disability at 88.83% to the whole body. However, the Tribunal considered disability at 20%. PW-3 has stated that the claimant is having 52% of Neuropsychological & Cognitive disability and neurobehavioral disability at 28%. The claimant was in hospital for a period of 310 days and there is no evidence with regard to drawing salary for the laid up period. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal considered disability at 20%, which is fair and reasonable and no interference is called for in that regard.

¶72

The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- towards medical expenses without any material available on record, under the said head. Infact, the claimant received some amount from the company where he was working by way of medical reimbursement. Hence, the claimant is not entitled for any enhancement under the head 'medical expenses'.

¶73

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads 'pain and suffering', 'loss of earning during laid up period', 'conveyance, nourishment, attendant charges', 'loss of amenities & comfort' and 'permanent physical impairment' are hereby maintained.

¶74

8 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:30118-DB MFA No. 9202 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 105 of 2016

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

Learned counsel for the Cross-Objector/claimant in MFA.Crob.No.105/2016 contended that due to permanent disability, the appellant-claimant had lost his promotional benefits and he has not been promoted to higher cadre, whereas, his colleagues were promoted to higher cadre and they are drawing higher salary than him.

¶78

An accident can indeed lead to loss of promotional benefits, particularly, if the accident results in an inability to fulfill the requirements of those benefits. For example, if a promotional benefit is tied to some targets and an accident prevents an employee from meeting those targets, the benefits may be forfeited. Similarly, if an accident leads to extended leave or disability, promotional particulars tied to active participation or performance may be missing. Whereas in the present case, due to the accident, the claimant got affected his chances of promotion and associated benefits. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to award a global compensation of Rs.6.00 lakhs towards 'loss of promotional aspects'.

¶79

9 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:30118-DB MFA No. 9202 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 105 of 2016

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

Thus, totally, the claimant is entitled for a total compensation

¶83

of Rs.25,25,000/- as per the table below:

¶84

Sl.No.	Head	Compensation awarded by Tribunal in Rs.	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Pain and sufferings	2,00,000	2,00,000
2.	Loss of income during laid up period, diet, nourishment and etc.,	6,00,000	6,00,000
3.	Attendant charges, conveyance, other incidental charges and etc.,	3,00,000	3,00,000
4.	Medical expenses	3,25,000	3,25,000
5.	Loss of Amenities and comfort	2,00,000	2,00,000
6.	For permanent physical impairment	3,00,000	3,00,000
7.	Loss of promotional aspects	-	6,00,000
	TOTAL	19,25,000	25,25,000
	LESS: COMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL	19,25,000- 25,25,000
	ENHANCED COMPENSATION	6,00,000/-

¶85

Insofar as, rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the learned counsel for the Insurer vehemently argued to reduce the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 6% contending that the same is on the higher side. In the decision rendered by this

¶86

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:30118-DB MFA No. 9202 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 105 of 2016

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

Court in MFA No.5896/2018 C/w.MFA Nos.4444/2018 and 4659/2018 in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others vs. Venkateshan V and others wherein a similar question arose with regard to awarding of interest, keeping in view Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been held that rate of interest shall not exceed 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. In the present cases also, the rate of interest is reduced to 6% p.a. instead of 8% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal.

¶89

It is made clear that the claimant is not entitled for interest on the compensation awarded under the head 'loss of promotional aspects'.

¶90

Accordingly, we pass the following:

¶91

ORDER

¶92

(i) MFA No.9202/2015 and MFA.Crob.No.105/2016

¶93

are allowed-in-part.

¶94

(ii) MFA.Crob.No.105/2016 filed by the claimant is allowed in-part by enhancing the compensation in favour of claimant by Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

¶95