IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.7775/2009 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGER IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO.LTD., No.41, CRISTU COMPLEX, II FLOOR, LAVELLE ROAD BANGALORE – 01.
2. THE MANAGER IFFCO TOKIO GEN INS. CO. LTD., #127/A, BHAVANI ARCADE, III FLOOR #306, 307, & 308, OPP:BASAVANNA NEAR OLD BUS STAND, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI – 580 029.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ZONAL MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BANGALORE ZONAL OFFICE SOUTH, KSCMF BUILDING, III FLOOR III BLOCK, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE- 560 052.
…APPELLANTS (BY SRI A.N KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O NAGARAJA NOW AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/O BANUVALLI VILLAGE HARIHAR TALUK.
2. V K SRINIVASA S/O V KRISHNAMURTHY NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS DRIVER OF AUTORIKSHAW BEARING No.KA-17/6490 R/O JAIBHEEMANAGAR HARIHAR.
3. D KRISHNAPPA S/O SANNADURUGAPPA MAJOR, POLICY HOLDER OF AUTORIKSHAW BEARING No.KA-17/6490 R/O HOUSE No.724/1 BETHUR ROAD, DAVANGERE.
4. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O JAGANNATHA NOW AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS OWNER OF AUTORIKSHAW BEARING No.KA-17/6490 R/O, I MAIN, 10TH CROSS JAIBHEEMANAGAR HARIHAR.
5. MAMATHA D/O BELAKERE NAGAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS OWNER OF AUTORIKSHAW BEARING No.KA-17/A-5761 R/O HOUSE No.64, PRINTING PRESS ROAD, SUNAGAR ONI HALLADAKERI, HARIHAR.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M VINAYAKEERTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 & 4 IS D/W V/O DTD.7.1.2011) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.06.2009 PASSED IN MVC No.288/2008 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) & MEMBER, MACT, HARIHAR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,66,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A.FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company seeking to set aside the judgment and award dated 24.6.2009 passed in MVC No.288/2008 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and Member, MACT, Harihar, wherein, the claim petition filed by the petitioner came to be allowed in part and an amount of Rs.2,66,000/- was awarded together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, parties hereinafter are referred to with reference to their rankings as it stood before the Tribunal.
3. The accident that gave rise to initiation of the proceedings is that, on 17.2.2008 petitioner was traveling in a Autorikshaw bearing Registration No.KA.17.A.5761 to her village Banuvalli at about 5.45 p.m. near Srikanth Talkies Shimoga road Harihar. By which time, the auto bearing Registration No.KA.17.6490 was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent and dashed against her because of which, she sustained grievous injuries. She stated to have taken treatment in hospital including government hospital at Harihar. A criminal case is also said to have been registered in Crime No. 31/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC.
4. Respondents 2 and 4 contested the petition and respondents 1, 3, 5 and 6 remained absent and set exparte. 2nd respondent contended that vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA.17.6490 was insured with 4th respondent and as such he is not liable to pay compensation and 4th respondent contended that the driver of auto did not possess valid and effective driving licence.
5. The learned member of the Tribunal was accommodated with the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2, documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P30 onbehalf of petitioner and documentary evidence of Exs.R1 and 2 on behalf of 4th respondent.
6. The learned Member after hearing the parties considered the case on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence and other materials available on record and partly allowed the petition and granted the compensation as stated above and fastened liability on the Insurance Company to compensate the award which is challenged in this appeal by the Insurance Company.
7. Learned counsel Sri. A.N.Krishna swamy, for Insurance Company would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘loss of future income at Rs.1,62,000/-, ‘pain and suffering at Rs.30,000/-’ and ‘special food and nourishment charges at Rs.10,000/-’ is excessive and goes beyond the background of just compensation.
8. The learned Member considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, has awarded the compensation of Rs.2,66,000/-. The breakup figure showing the compensation is as under:
(a) Pain & sufferings Rs.30,000.00 (b) Medical Expenses(past & future) Rs.20,000.00 (c) Medical attendant charges Rs.10,000.00 (d) Spl. Food & nourishment charges Rs.10,000.00 (e) Travelling charges Rs. 5,000.00 (f) Loss of life amenities & pleasure Rs.10,000.00 (g) Loss of expectation of life Rs.10,000.00 (h) Loss of income during laid-up period Rs. 9,000.00 (i) Loss of future income due to dis-ability (Rs.36,000X18X25/100=Rs1,62,000/-) Rs.1,62,000.00 Total Rs.2,66,000.00 9. On perusal of the break up figure of compensation awarded by the learned Member, it is seen that the monthly income is considered at Rs.3,000/-, ‘18’ multiplier applied as the age of the victim is 21 years as on the date of the accident with disability at 25% while awarding compensation of Rs.1,62,000/- towards loss of future income. In the over all circumstances of the case, I find that considering monthly income at Rs.3,000/- and 18 multiplier is just and proper. However, the percentage of disability considered at 25% and it is the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that disability to right limb by itself is 25% and the learned Member has considered the total disability at 25% and it needs to be modified.
10. In the context and circumstances of the case, the compensation granted by the learned Member under the different heads as mentioned above and in all, Rs.2,66,000/- appears to be just and proper and I do not find that there is necessity for interference.
Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is maintained. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.
tsn* Sd/- JUDGE