IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.320/2016(MV) BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIV. NO.10, FLAT NO 101-106 N-1 BMC HOUSE CONNAUGHT PLACE - 110001 NEW DELHI APPELLANT IS REP. HEREIN BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD BANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE SUBHARAM COMPLEX 144 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD BANGALORE - 560001 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.POONACHA C M, ADV.) AND:
1. N.P.SUMAN S/O LATE DR N S PRASAD HINDU AGED 31 YEARS R/AT NO.1139, 9TH MAIN 6TH CROSS, SRINIVASANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 050 2. D VANACHANDRA REDDY S/O D RAJAREDDY, HINDU, MAJOR R/AT PLOT NO 10, SRINAGAR COLONY RAYLACHERUVU ROAD THIRUPATHI – 517 501 ANDHRA PRADESH STATE SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR WIFE SMT D INDIRA REDDY HINDU MAJOR R/AT PLOT NO 10, SRINAGAR COLONY RAYLACHERUVU ROAD, THIRUPATHI – 517 501 ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.T C SATHISH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.116/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE 13TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.8,23,300/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant insurance company has challenged the judgment and award passed in MVC No.116/2009 by the MACT and Court of Small Causes Bangalore. Earlier the order passed by the Tribunal was subject matter in MFA 8348/2011 which was ended in remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
2. Thereafter, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.8,23,300/-. Against this, the appellant has filed this appeal.
3. The grounds taken by the appellant- insurance company are that when the compensation is awarded under the loss of future earning by taking income of the injured, disability and relevant factor, that the question of awarding compensation under the head permanent physical impairment does not arise.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent sought to dismiss the appeal and submitted that the claimants are entitled for more compensation, but have not chosen interest in filing the appeal for enhancement.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
6. The Tribunal in taking into consideration the evidence of the doctor and the wound certificate and disability has awarded compensation of Rs.2,33,280/- by taking the income of the injured. But awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head permanent physical impairment does not arise as it is duplication or repetition of the head under which compensation is to be awarded. Hence, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded under item No.8 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- stands deleted. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the insurance company that the Tribunal has taken the income of the injured which is on the higher side. The same is not substantiated by any piece of evidence. Accordingly, the same is rejected. Hence, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation is reduced from Rs.8,23,300/- to Rs.7,23,300/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The statutory deposit made before this Court is to be transferred to the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE NM