IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3714 OF 2016 (MV) BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., B.H.ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD REGIONAL OFFICE SUBHARAM COMPLEX 144, M.G.ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 …APPELLANT (BY SHRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. NAGENDRA S/O JAGANNATHA SHETTY NOW AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O MALALAGADDE ARAGA POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 213 2. B.L. PRABAKARA HEGDE S/O G.L. HEGDE, MAJOR R/O AGUMBE ROAD THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 213 3. DAYANANDA S/O KRISHNAMURTHY NOW AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O BALEBYLE THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 213 …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. H.R. SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SHRI. Y.P. RAKSHITH JOIS FOR SHRI. H.B. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATES FOR R2 & R3) . . . .
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.10.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.17/2013 (MVC 54/2012) ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC MACT, THIRTHAHALLI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.10,97,700/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT Heard. Shri. A.N. Krishna Swamy learned advocate for the appellant, Shri. H.R. Showri, learned Advocate for respondent No.1 and Shri. Y.P. Rakshith Jois, learned advocate for the respondents No.2 and 3.
2. Insurer has challenged the judgment and award dated 17th October 2015 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.17/2013.
3. The first respondent–claimant was injured when a Lorry dashed against the Motor Cycle which he was riding.
4. On consideration of the material on record, Tribunal has awarded a compensation of `10,97,700/-.
5. Shri.Krishna Swamy, learned Advocate for the insurer urged two grounds. Firstly, that the vehicle in question was carrying hazardous material and therefore, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the claimant. Secondly, the quantum of compensation is high because the disability suffered by the claimant as reckoned by the Tribunal is 62% and the same is erroneous.
6. After arguing the matter for some time, learned Advocates appearing on both sides, after due deliberation, agreed that the quantum of compensation payable to the claimant may be reduced by `2,00,000/-. They have filed a joint Memo of even date which reads as follows:
“JOINT MEMO The Appellant and Respondent No.1 most humbly submit that they have mutually discussed and settled the matter of this appeal that the Judgement and Award passed by the court of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Thirthahalli, in MVC No.17/2013 dated 17.10.2015, may be modified by reducing the award by Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only).
This memo may kindly be taken on record and suitable order may be passed in accordance with law.”
6. So far as the ground with regard to vehicle carrying hazardous material is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded a finding in paragraph No.37 that the eye witness have stated that the offending vehicle was not loaded with hazardous material namely cylinders filled with gas. In view of said finding recorded by the Tribunal, the second ground fails.
7. So far as the quantum is concerned, it is jointly prayed by the parties to reduce by `2,00,000/-. Hence following:
ORDER (a) Appeal is allowed in part.
(b) Claimant is entitled for `8,97,700/- with interest at 6% p.a.
(c) Registry shall transfer the amount in deposit before this Court to the Tribunal for disbursement as per the award passed by the Tribunal.
(d) The excess amount shall be refunded to the appellant by the Tribunal.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE SPS