IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.747/2019 C/W M.F.A.No.7148/2019(MV) IN MFA No.747/2019 BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 1ST FLOOR, KRUTHIKA ARCADE N.R. CIRCLE, H.N. PURA ROAD HASSAN CITY-573 201.
ALSO AT RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR No.28, CENTENARY BUILDING M. G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . KARTHIK N, S/O NARENDRABABU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O KUVEMPUNAGAR CHANNARAYAPATTANA TOWN.
2 . B G PRASAD, MAJOR R/O No.77, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 5TH PHASE, BENGALURU G .P. O BENGALURU NORTH-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 NOTICE TO R-2 DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD.7.2.19) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173 (1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.11.2018, PASSED IN MVC No.1610/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., CHANNARAYAPATNA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.6,58,286/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE REALIZATION (FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES OF Rs.45,000/- SHALL NOT CARRY ANY INTEREST).
IN MFA No.7148/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI KARTHIK N S/O NARENDRABABU AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT KUVEMPUNAGAR, CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . SRI B G PRASAD MAJOR, R/O No.77, 1st MAIN, 5TH PHASE, BANGALORE G P O BANGALORE NORTH -560 001.
2 . THE BRANCH MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., 1ST FLOOR, KRUTHIKA ARCADE, N R CIRCLE, H N PURA ROAD, HASSAN CITY-573 201. ….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173 (1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.11.2018, PASSED IN MVC No.1610/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., CHANNARAYAPATNA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.6,58,286/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE REALIZATION (FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES OF Rs.45,000/- SHALL NOT CARRY ANY INTEREST). SEEKING ENHANCEMENT.
THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Matters are posted for admission. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the nature of the case, the same are taken up for disposal.
These two appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 16.11.2018, passed in MVC No.1610/2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna, wherein the claim petition came to be allowed in part and a compensation of Rs.6,58,286/- is awarded together with interest at 9% p.a. (excluding interest on Rs.45,000/- awarded towards future medical expenses) from the date of petition till realization and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the same.
2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, both the Insurance Company and the claimant have come up in appeals.
Insofar as MFA No.747/2019 is concerned, it is preferred by the Insurance Company seeking to set aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and MFA No.7148/2019 is preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties herein are referred to with reference to their rankings as held by them before the tribunal.
4. The set of facts leading for initiating proceedings before the Tribunal are:
On 29.8.2016 at about 9.00 a.m. when the petitioner was returning to his work shop after completing building work in Udaypura by riding his Hero Honda motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA.13.EF.4247 and when he came near Government Degree College on B.M.Road, Channarayapatna, at that time, the driver of Maruthi 800 car bearing No.KA.05.MD.7130 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner’s motor cycle. Due to which, he sustained grievous injuries and lost consciousness. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Channarayapatna and after taking initial treatment he was referred to Punya hospital, Channarayapatna, where he has undergone 3 operations, implants were inserted, took treatment as inpatient for one week and then shifted to Government Hospital, Channarayapatna for further treatment totally he took 30 days treatment and he was advised to take bed rest for six months and he has to undergo surgery for removal of implants. He spent Rs.2,50,000/-
towards medical, conveyance and other expenses and he require Rs.2,00,000/- for further treatment.
It is stated that, prior to accident, he was hale and healthy and engaged in welding work, running welding shop in Channarayapatna and earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to injuries and after effects of the accident, petitioner cannot do his job or any other job in future.
5. The Insurance Company resisted the claim petition.
6. Larned member adjudicated the matter on the aspects of negligence, occurrence of accident, entitlement for compensation and was accommodated with the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P22 on behalf of the claimant and no oral or documentary evidence is adduced or produced by respondent and allowed the claim petition in part awarding the compensation as mentioned above.
Against which these appeals came to be filed both by the insurer and claimant.
7. counsel Sri. Ashok N.Patil for Insurance Company in MFA No.747/2019 would submit that the compensation awarded is unreasonably on higher side and considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant, there was no occasion to grant Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for claimant would submit that claimant has undergone three surgeries and as a matter of fact, the compensation deserves to be enhanced in the area of monthly income and loss of amenities.
9. Thus it is on the aspect of quantum, the Insurance Company and claimant have preferred their respective appeals.
10. As per wound certificate and discharge summary, claimant has sustained fracture of right femur, tibia and fibula and distal radius fracture which is grievous in nature and he was treated with IM interlocking nail for both tibia and multiple K wire fixation for distal radius fracture. The Doctor has assessed disability at 39.75% to right lower limb and 17.50% to right upper limb and the tribunal has assessed whole body disability at 19.08%.
11. The compensation granted by the learned
Pain and agony Rs.2,00,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of future income Rs.2,74,752/-
Future medical expenses Rs. 45,000/- Total Rs.6,58,286/-
12. Insofar as the compensation awarded under pain and agony is concerned, the learned member has considered it at Rs.2,00,000/-. In the context and circumstances of the case, it is unreasonably high and it should have been restricted to Rs.1,00,000/- and accordingly, it is done. Considering the detail report regarding disability, in my considered view, it deserves to be increased to Rs.50,000/- and accordingly, it is done.
13. Thus, in my considered view though the learned member was right in allowing the claim petition in part, erred seriously in over assessing the quantum of compensation, more particularly, in the light of interest being granted at 9% p.a. Thus, in my considered view, fair and just compensation would be Rs.5,68,286/- instead of Rs.6,58,286/- and there would be a reduction of Rs.90,000/-.
14. Thus, the appeal preferred by Insurance Company in M.F.A.No.747/2019 is allowed in part and the appeal preferred by the claimant in M.F.A.No.7148/2019 is dismissed.
Judgment and award dated 16.11.2018 passed in MVC No.1610/2016, by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna, is modified awarding compensation of Rs.5,68,286/-as against Rs.6,58,286/- awarded by the Tribunal (reduction of compensation would be Rs.90,000/-) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
Insurance Company is directed to deposit compensation amount by deducting the compensation if any already deposited together with interest at 9% p.a. as ordered by the Tribunal within two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.
Amount in deposit be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.
tsn* Sd/- JUDGE