IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT M.F.A.NO.122/2019 (MV-I) c/w M.F.A.NO.1311/2018 IN M.F.A.NO.122/2019:
BETWEEN:
BHARATHI AXA GIC LTD., TEMPLE ROAD, KALIDASA CIRCLE, V.V.MOHALLA, NO.2951/A, D.29/1, 1ST FLOOR, MYSURU-570002.
NOW REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, BHARTI AXA GIC LTD., HOSTO CENTRE, 1ST FLOOR, NO.43, MILLERS ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, OPP. IMPERIAL HOTEL, BENGALURU-52. …APPELLANT (BY SRI A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRINIVAS S.G., S/O GOVINDAPPA. M, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT “SHREYAS NILAYA”, 5TH MAIN ROAD, SIDDAGANGA EXTENSION, TUMAKURU-572 101.
2. SYED KAREEM, S/O SYED GHOUSE, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT G.C.R. COLONY, SANTHEPET, TUMAKURU-572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 11.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.225/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & MEMBER, AMACT, TUMAKURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,52,549/- WITH INTEREST @ 7.5% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO.1311/2018:
BETWEEN:
SRINIVAS S.G., S/O GOVINDAPPA. M, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT “SHREYAS NILAYA”, 5TH MAIN ROAD, SIDDAGANGA EXTENSION, TUMAKURU-572 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI K.SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SYED KAREEM, S/O SYED GHOUSE, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT G.C.R. COLONY, SANTHEPET, TUMAKURU-572 101.
2. BHARATHI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, TEMPLE ROAD, KALIDASA CIRCLE, V.V.MOHALLA, NO.2951/A, D.29/1, 1ST FLOOR, MYSURU-570002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O. DTD- 09/04/2018. NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 11.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.225/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT In M.F.A.No.122/2019, the only two contentions urged by the appellant-insurer for invaliding the impugned judgment & award viz., (a) the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle lacked the transport endorsement and (b) that the interest awarded by the MACT is one & half percent higher than what the normally law permits.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent/claimants per contra submits that the first question about the lack of transport endorsement having been answered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company and Others, AIR 2017 SC 3668 in favour of the claimants, the same pales into insignificance; the learned counsel for the respondent/claimants further submits that although ordinarily the rate of interest is awarded at 6% per annum, the MACT in its accumulated wisdom has awarded 7.5% and therefore, the same does not merit interference.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Appeal papers, this court is of considered opinion that the first contention does not merit consideration since the question of law relating to absence of endorsement is no longer res integra in view of the decision in Mukund Dewangan Case. However, there is some force in the second contention that the interest rate ought to have been 6 %, there being no special circumstances warranting award of higher rate of interest.
4. In claimant’s appeal in M.F.A.No.1311/2018, the counsel for the appellant vehemently argues that the award is too much on the meager side and therefore, there is an eminent need for enhancement of the compensation amount. This contention is stoutly opposed by the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent/insurer by pointing out that the medical witness i.e., the doctor who had treated the injured claimant was not examined as a witness nor any explanation is offered for not examining him.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, this court is of the considered opinion that justice of the case warrants marginal enhancement of the compensation through a sum of Rs.10,000/-.
6. In the above circumstances, both the appeals are allowed in part; the compensation amount is enhanced by Rs.10,000/-. The rate of interest is refixed at 6% p.a; all other terms and conditions of the award remaining intact.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional MACT for being released to the claimants, forthwith.
The appellant/insurer shall deposit the balance amount payable under the award within six weeks in the MACT below, whereupon the same shall be released to the claimant before long.
No costs.
cbc Sd/- JUDGE