IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.1537/2013(MV) BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.40, LAKSHMI COMPLEX, K.R.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002 BY REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU -560 027 BY ITS MANAGER ..APPELLANT (BY SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. T.K.CHANDRABAN SINGH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE KRISHNA SINGH RESIDING AT NO.15, 7TH CROSS, OLD BANK COLONY KONANAKUNTE, BENGALURU CITY 2. M.A.RAJ MOHAN MAJOR S/O ARCHUDAN M RESIDING AT NO.470/A, NALINI NILAYA, 1ST B CROSS MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560 054 ..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, NOTICE TO R-2 HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 24.03.2015) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6403/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,73,800/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Learned counsel for appellant absent. No representation. Since the matter is already heard in part and counsel for respondent is present, it is taken up for final disposal.
Appeal is by the insurance company directed against the Judgment and award dated 21.11.2012 passed in MVC No.6403/2010 by the learned XVIII Additional Judge, Member, MACT-4, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, wherein claim petition filed by one T.K.Chandraban Singh came to be allowed in part and compensation of Rs.1,73,800/- came to be awarded payable by insurance company together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit.
2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.
3. The incident that gave raise to initiating the proceedings before the Tribunal is that on 13.04.2010 at about 1.30 p.m when Chandrabhan Singh, petitioner was riding motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-01-U-4300 and proceeding after the traffic signal, the rider of Honda Activa bearing registration No.KA-04-EP-343 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner because of which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
4. It is stated that petitioner was aged 48 years at the time of accident and was running electrical business thereby earning Rs.15,000/- per month and sought compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The injuries sustained by the petitioner as deposed by the doctor- PW-2 are:
Fracture of trochanter right ad underwent open reduction and internal with DHS.
5. Learned counsel for appellant on the earlier occasion submitted that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is exorbitant and excess. Further a wrong vehicle is planted as offending vehicle, though in fact the same was not involved and there is no liability on the part of the insurance company. However the same was opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.1. Learned counsel R.Chandrashekar for respondent No.1 submitted that the compensation granted is fair and just and award was passed after assigning sound reasoning.
6. Learned Member has considered loss of future earnings due to disability at Rs.46,800/- by considering the nature of injuries.
7. The percentage of total disability is considered at 10% and monthly income is considered as Rs.3,000/-. The break up of compensation is as under:
SL.NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
8. If it is the case of the appellant- insurance company on record that there is a change of vehicle and fraud has been played on the insurance company, institution like appellant insurance company would not have kept quite without agitating against fraud by filing a separate case. In the circumstances, I find the objections are taken for the sake of objections without there being any substance.
In the over all circumstances considering the injuries and disability, compensation granted by learned Member appears to be fair and just and there is no substance in the appeal to entertain the same. Appeal is dismissed.
Amount in deposit if any to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company Sri O.Mahesh appears later and submits that he was held up in the other Court and further requests for accommodation.
10. Since only the dictation part of the judgment is over and typing and signing of the judgment are yet to be made, in the ends of justice, accommodation is granted.
11. Learned counsel submits that a false claim is made against the insurance company by planting a wrong vehicle only with an intention to cause loss to the insurance company.
12. In the circumstances, the said aspect is already considered by this Court in the judgment. Hence, I am of the considered view that the result of the appeal remains same.
The presence of the learned counsel is taken on record.
Sd/- JUDGE SBN/BSR