IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY M.F.A. No. 1315/2017 [MV] BETWEEN :
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. SURATHKAL BRANCH, MANGALURU TALUK, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, NO.44/45, 4TH FLOOR, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS, BANGALORE – 560 025.
(BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADV.) AND :
1. MR. VINAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O JANARDHAN KULAL, R/AT KADEGOLI HOUSE, (SAI SIDDI NILAYA) PUDU POST, BANTWAL TALUK, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SRI SAI NILAYA, MALLIKATTE, MANGALURU – 575008.
2. MR. RADHAKRISHNA RAI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O PRABHAKARA RAI, R/AT SUBRAMANYA NILAYA, DEREBAIL, MANGALURU, D.K. (BY SMT. SANDHYA RAO P., ADV.) ...APPELLANT …RESPONDENTS THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 04.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1664/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & MACT, MANGALURU, D.K., AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 5,17,168/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 04.11.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K. in awarding compensation of Rs.5,17,168/-.
2. The claimant-respondent No.1 has sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident. The claimant has sustained fracture of both bones distal 1/4th left clavicle swelling, tenderness, deformity and fracture of malleolus left ankle and fracture of right tibia. The Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation on all the heads. The Tribunal has also considered the judgment in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs BIJUMON AND OTHERS, reported in 2011 ACJ 1114 and also SHAHEED AHAMED Vs SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT AND ANOTHER reported in 2008(4) KCCR 2305 and has correctly held that the claimant who has received Mediclaim policy amount at the time of the treatment cannot be deducted out of compensation amount which is to be awarded under the M.V.Act. The Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the injured and directed respondents No 1 and 2 to pay the compensation jointly and severally to the claimant. Hence, there is no scope for interference with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Nm