IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT M.F.A. NO.8298 OF 2011 (MV) C/W M.F.A.NO.8731 OF 2011 IN M.F.A. NO.8298 OF 2011:
BETWEEN M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, NO. 89, SVR COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, MADIVALA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.H.N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI.M.S. NAGARAJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A MALAGALA GRAMA, AKKUR HOSAHALLI POST, VIRUPAKSHAPURA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DIST.
2. SRI. BASAVARAJU, S/O ANDHANAIAH, R/A NO.3/6, 1ST CROSS, DWARAKA NAGARA, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE-85. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.N.M. PRUTHVI RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.T. SHANKARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:6.6.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.1175/2010 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.6,37,258/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
IN M.F.A.NO.8731 OF 2011:
BETWEEN SRI.M.S. NAGARAJAIAH, S/O LATE M. SRIKANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALAGALA VILLAGE, AKKUR HOSAHALLI (P), VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TQ, RAMANAGARA DIST. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.N.M. PRUTHVI RAJ, ADVOCATE) AND 1. BASAVARAJ, S/O ANDHANAIAH, AGED MAJOR, R/AT 3/6, 1ST CROSS, DWARAKA NAGAR, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, HOSKERE HALLI, BANGALORE-85.
2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE AT NO.89, S.V.R. COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS (V/O DTD 21/08/2015, APPEAL AGAINST R1 DISMISSED; R2 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173 (1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 6.6.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.1175/2010 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T The appeal by the Insurer and the cross-objections by the Claimants lay a challenge to the judgment and award dated 6.6.2011 made by MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-13), allowing the claim petition in M.V.C.No.1175/2010 whereby, a compensation of Rs.6,37,258/- with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum has been awarded. The challenge by the Insurer is on the ground that the award is in excess of entitlement, whereas the challenge by the Claimant is on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer vehemently contends that admittedly, the Claimant was a public servant being in the employment of Hopcoms which is held to be a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and his service conditions are governed by the Service Rules and therefore, he having not been terminated from service or reverted to the lower position, on account of any disability occasioned by the accident, the MACT could not have awarded any compensation under the head “Loss of future earning”.
3. The learned counsel for the Claimant per contra contends that the MACT being a statutory body, having the advantage of accumulated wisdom which has been employed in the making of the impugned judgment and award, the indulgence of this Court is not called for. He also submits that ‘Loss of future earning’ has to be interpreted in a liberal way as to include the likely loss which an employee would suffer by virtue of reduction of his employment potential, post-retirement also. The learned counsel for the Claimant vehemently contends that the compensation awarded under various heads as enumerated in Page 15 of the impugned judgment and award is too much on the lower side and therefore, the same needs to be enhanced;
3A. The contention that the compensation awarded under various heads is less than the entitlement, has some force; the amount awarded under the head “Loss of amenities and future happiness’ in a sum of Rs.60,000/- ought to have been Rs.85,000/-; the compensation awarded in a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head “conveyance, nourishment, etc” appears to be a little less than what ought to have been awarded and therefore, the same is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the Insurer and the learned counsel for the claimant. I have perused the Appeal Papers. I have also perused relevant pages of the original LCR.
5. The contention advanced on behalf of the Insurer that in the absence of the removal or reduction in rank or diminishing of promotional prospects, it is not open to an employee of a public sector undertaking to seek compensation under the head “Loss of future income”, has got force. It is not the case of the Claimant that because of the injuries sustained in the accident, he was removed from the employment or reverted in rank. In fact, his admission in the cross- examination which the MACT has reproduced, supports the case of the Insurer.
6. In the above circumstances, these appeals succeed in part; the impugned judgment and awards are modified downwardly revising the compensation amount from Rs.6,37,258/- to Rs.3,90,954/- with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum; all other terms and conditions thereof having been left intact.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional MACT for being released to the Claimant and residue shall be refunded to the Insurer.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc