IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8739/2019 [MV] BETWEEN THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., D.NO.15-1836, SURYA TOWERS, C.B. ROAD, TADIPATRI A.P.- 515411, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIGINAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-25. ... APPELLANT [BY SRI. K.N. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE] AND 1. SRI. MANJUNATHA, S/O. VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT KORAKONAHALLI VILLAGE, PEDDUR POST, MURUGAMALLA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
ALSO R/AT:
C/O. KRISHNAMURTHY Y.R., NO.1002/D, PBS ROAD, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064.
2. MRS. NOORJAHAN M., W/O. JILAN @ M.JEELAN, NO.14/280, HOSPITAL PALEM, TADIPATRI, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, ANDRAPRADESH-0515425, 3. M/S. ARUNACHALA LOGISTRICS (PVT), REP. BY MR. Y.V. NAIDU, NO.8-3-961/B, 4TH FLOOR, SBI BUILDING, SRINAGARA COLONY, HYDERABAD, ANDRA PRADESH-500 082.
4. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.9, 2ND FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBER, MG ROAD, BANGALORE-01. ... RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. G.S. SUDHAKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1] * * * THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.05.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.69/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHINTAMANI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.19,66,600/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though this appeal is listed for admission, it is taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the learned counsel.
2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 08.05.2019 passed in M.V.C. No.69/2014 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT., Chinthamani, wherein Rs.19,66,600/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. is granted to the claimant by way of compensation. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the appellant-The Oriental insurance Co. Ltd., has come up in this appeal.
3. In order to avoid overlapping, the parties are referred in accordance with their rank as stood before the Tribunal.
4. The details of the accident are that;
On 06.05.2011, the petitioner along with the lorry cleaner Harinath Reddy left in the lorry bearing reg. No.AP- 09/TA-1658 from RCL Priya Cement Factory to Bengaluru and when they reached near Loluru cross of Singamala Mandalam, Ananthapuram District, Andhra Pradesh on 07.05.2011, it was 4.30 a.m. At that time, a lorry bearing reg. No.AP-21/V-8758 was parked in the center of the road without any signal nor any person was present there. At that time, vehicles were coming from the opposite side and due to the light of the said vehicles, the petitioner could not notice the lorry which was parked in the center of the road and dashed against the parked lorry. The accident occurred due to the negligent parking of the lorry bearing reg. No.AP-21/V-8758. Due to the impact of the accident the petitioner sustained serious injuries. It is also stated that criminal case came to be registered in Crime No.58/2011 against the driver of the lorry bearing reg. No.AP-21/V-8758.
5. The Tribunal has granted a compensation amount of Rs.19,66,600/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till payment, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on both sides.
6. Sri. K.N. Srinivasa, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that there was no fault on the part of the driver of the lorry which was parked on the side of the road and on the other hand, it was due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing reg. No.AP-09/TA-1658 by respondent No.1-claimant.
7. The learned counsel would further submit that the monthly income is considered on the higher side. Though the disability was mentioned at 27%, the Tribunal has considered it at 80%. Thus, the quantum of compensation is very much on the higher side and requires to be modified.
8. The learned counsel for respondent No.1-claimant Sri. G.S.Sudhakar Reddy would submit that the range of injury and the disability to the claimant is unimaginable as he was the driver of the lorry and has lost his left leg above the knee level. He is 100% disabled, disqualified in the matter of driving a vehicle and even for his daily activities he is required an assistant and whatever being awarded is not exorbitant and on the other hand, it is on the lower side.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant made available a photograph for verification, on which I find that a person who is shown in the photograph has lost left leg upto above the knee level and the learned counsel submits that the injuries as stated by the doctor-P.W.2 are as under:
Supra candylar fracture of left femur – open type, Fracture of mid shaft of left tibia with vascular compromise-non viable leg.
Fracture of heads of 2nd and 3rd metatarsal bones with dislocation of correspondent MCP joints in left foot.
Fracture of left navicular bone.
The above injuries are grievous in nature.
10. The disability is assessed at 27% to the whole body. Considering the range of the injuries, the Tribunal has considered it at 80%. The monthly income of the claimant is considered as Rs.12,000/- The loss of future income because of disability is calculated at Rs.12,000 x 80% = Rs.9,600 x 12 = Rs.1,15,200/-. The applicable multiplier is 16. Then it would be Rs.18,43,200/- [Rs.1,15,200 x 16] and insofar as the other heads, the compensation is given as under:
Particulars Amount in Rs.
1. Pain and sufferings. … 20,000 2. Attendant charges, extra nutritious food conveyance expenses.
… 10,000 3. Medical expenses. … 31,400 4. Loss of income due to laid period. … 12,000 5. Loss of future income due to disability.
11. In the present set of circumstances, I find that considering the occupation of the claimant, range of injuries suffered and extent of disability assessed, I find that the compensation of Rs.19,66,600/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and fair. Hence, there is no necessity for re-considering. The Tribunal was right in disposing off the claim petition by granting the above said amount with interest.
Hence, the appeal is rejected. Accordingly, the office is directed to transmit the record to the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE.
Ksm*