Manager Vs Rangaswamy

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.1393/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶28

IN MFA NO. 266/2021

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. C.NANJAPPA COMPLEX, SUBASH SQAURE, HASSAN, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICE NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025 BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER

¶31

...APPELLANT

¶32

(BY SRI. H.C VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND:

¶34

RANGASWAMY AGED 54 YEARS S/O HANUMEGOWDA RAYASAMUDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ALUR TALUK-573 213

¶35

THIMMEGOWDA

¶36

S/O RANGEGOWDA DODDAMANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573 201.

¶37

...RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T, ADVOCATE FOR R21, VIDE ORDER DATED 28/07/2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶39

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:37780 MFA No. 2953 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2021

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

CNR: KAHC010189992020

¶42

MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1393/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,44,547/- WITH INTEREST AT 8 PERCENT P.A. ON RS.2,19,547/FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶43

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

¶44

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶45

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶46

Both the insurer and the claimant are in appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 02.01.2020 passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.1393/2016.

¶47

While MFA.No.266/2021 is by the insurer challenging the quantum as well as attribution of entire negligence on the rider of the offending motorcycle, MFA.No.2953/2020 is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶48

The fact that the accident occurred and the further fact

¶49

that the offending vehicle was insured are not in dispute.

¶50

The Tribunal, on assessment of evidence, has awarded

¶51

the following sums as compensation:

¶52

4 -

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:37780 MFA No. 2953 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2021

¶55

CNR: KAHC010189992020

¶56

Sl. No.	Particulars	Amount in (Rs.)
1.	Pain and sufferings	45,000
2.	Loss of future income	33,600
3.	Medical expenses	66,887
4.	Future medical expenses	25,000
5.	Loss of income during the laid up period	17,000
6.	Conveyance, food, nourishment, attendant charges	25,000
7.	Loss of amenities in life	30,000
	Total	2,44,547

¶57

Learned counsel for the insurer would contend that the

¶58

Tribunal has grossly erred in attributing entire negligence on the rider of the offending motorcycle. According to him, the spot mahazar and the spot sketch clearly reveal that the accident occurred almost in the middle of the road that too, head on collision of two motorcycles. In such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have attributed contributory negligence on the claimant as well. He would also contend that mere registration of FIR and filing of charge sheet against the rider of

¶59

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:37780 MFA No. 2953 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2021

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

CNR: KAHC010189992020

¶62

the offending motorcycle cannot be considered as criteria for attributing entire negligence on the part of the rider of the offending vehicle. He would further contend that the Tribunal has erred in awarding exorbitant sums under all the heads as well as awarding interest at 9% p.a. Accordingly, he prays for allowing of the appeal of the insurer.

¶63

On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant would contend that the Tribunal has rightly attributed entire negligence on the part of the rider of the offending vehicle. According to him, Ex.P4 - spot mahazar clearly depicts that the accident occurred in a 22 feet road and the claimant was riding his motorcycle on left side of the road from BM Road to Sakleshpur, whereas, the rider of the offending motorcycle, who came from opposite direction i.e., from Sakleshpur, moved to the right side of the road by crossing half of the road and dashed against the claimant, as a result, the accident occurred and further, the charge sheet is laid against the rider of the offending motorcycle. He would also contend that the Tribunal has awarded meager sums under all the heads, which requires interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he would

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:37780 MFA No. 2953 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2021

¶66

6 -

¶67

CNR: KAHC010189992020

¶68

pray for allowing of the appeal of the claimant by dismissing the appeal of the insurer.

¶69

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

¶70

As could be gathered from records, particularly, Ex.P4 - spot mahazar, the accident was head on collision between two motorcycles in a 22 feet road. No doubt, the rider of the offending motorcycle had crossed 3 feet from the middle of the road towards right side of the road, but the claimant who was riding his motorcycle from the opposite direction, was also not riding his motorcycle in the extreme left side of the road by following the rules and was riding his motorcycle almost 10 feet towards right side of the road in a 22 feet road. As such, it could be easily presumed that even the claimant has contributed 10% negligence to the occurrence of the accident.

¶71

I have perused the evidence of the Doctor, who deposed that the claimant has suffered 10% disability to the left hand. The Tribunal has assessed the same at 3% having regard to the

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:37780 MFA No. 2953 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2021

¶74

7 -

¶75

CNR: KAHC010189992020

¶76

nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, which, in my view, is just and proper. However, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.8,500/-. Since there is no credible documentary evidence to ascertain the actual monthly income, it would be appropriate and prudent to adopt the monthly income determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which, for the accident of the year 2016, would be Rs.9,500/-.

¶77

As the claimant was aged 52 years, a multiplier of '11' would have to be applied. Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.37,620/- (Rs.9,500 x 12 x 11 x 3%) towards 'loss of future income' as against Rs.33,660/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶78

As a consequence, the amount of Rs.17,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of income during laid up period' would also stand enhanced to Rs.28,500/- (Rs.9,500 X 3 months) treating the laid up period as three months.

¶79

The sums awarded by the Tribunal under other heads, being just and proper, are affirmed.

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

NC: 2026:KHC:37780 MFA No. 2953 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2021

¶82

8 -

¶83

CNR: KAHC010189992020

¶84

Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and

¶85

the claimant would be entitled to the following compensation:

¶86

Sl. No.	Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal	As awarded by this Court
		(Rs.)	(Rs.)
1.	Pain and sufferings	45,000	45,000
2.	Loss of future income	33,660	37,620
3.	Medical expenses	68,887	68,887
4.	Future medical expenses	25,000	25,000
5.	Loss of income during the laid up period	17,000	28,500
6.	Conveyance, food, nourishment, attendant charges	25,000	25,000
7.	Loss of amenities in life	30,000	30,000
	Total	2,44,547	2,60,007
	Less deduction of 10% towards contributory negligence		26,000
	Total		2,34,007

¶87

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:37780 MFA No. 2953 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 266 of 2021

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

CNR: KAHC010189992020

¶90

Thus, the claimant is held entitled to the total compensation of Rs.2,34,007/- as against Rs.2,44,547/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. instead of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶91

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶92

The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal.

¶93

The appeal of the claimant as well as the insurer are accordingly allowed in part .

¶94

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶95

PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Manager v. Rangaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manager v. Rangaswamy

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

Sri. Arun K @ Arunkumar Vs Sri. Manjunath Reddy K

Shankare Gowda Vs Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

The Managing Director Vs Shivanna

Mr Manu S C @ Mohana Vs Divisional Controller

Sri Murli Vs the Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (Ksrtc)

Divisional Controller Vs Manu S C @ Mohana