IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. K. SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A. No.405 OF 2019 (MV) BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED T.P.HUB, REGIONAL OFFICE LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS BENGALURU – 560 025 NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL.
(BY SRI.ASHOK N.PATIL, ADV.,) …APPELLANT AND:
1. KUMARI BAI W/O.PACHU NAIK AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT KOLIPALYA VILLAGE MUKANAHALLI POST CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
2. THE MANAGER M/S.EMERALD HEAVEN ESTATE LTD., BEDAGULI ESTATE, BEDAGULI VILLAGE CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.JAGADISH KUMBAR, ADV., FOR R-1, SRI.KESHAVA KUMAR.V., ADV., FOR R-2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 25.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.2369/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCH-18), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,47,460/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed in MVC.No.2369/2017 dated 25.09.2018 by the III Additional Judge and Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, wherein, the claim petition came to be allowed in part and the amount of Rs.1,47,460/- with interest at 9% p.a. was granted by way of compensation.
2. The incident that gave arise to initiating proceedings before the Tribunal is stated to be that, on 06.08.2015, the petitioner procured medium goods vehicle belonging to the first respondent from her village to got to estate along with other labourers. The vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner because of which, when the vehicle reached Basavanakallu Bedaguli road, near Punajanur forest check post, the driver of the vehicle driven the same with high speed went into wrong side of the road and near channel, the vehicle fell into the ditch. As a result, petitioner sustained injuries and claim petition was preferred.
3. The insurance company and the owner of the offending vehicle disputed the right to receive compensation.
4. Insofar as the tribunal is concerned, it has considered the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.6,500/- and the disability of 6% on the basis of the injury i.e., comminuted lower end radius fracture right side and awarded the compensation as mentioned above. The same is challenged by the Insurance Company in this appeal both on the liability and interest.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the owner - respondent No.2 before the Tribunal has admitted that the petitioner therein was not his employee and that he has entered the vehicle without the knowledge of the driver or the owner of the goods vehicle, on his own. Thus, the petitioner is no way connected to the work under the respondent No.2 herein.
6. The above submission appears to have made on the strength of admission of the owner. There is no account of hostilities in between the owner and the claimant. The claim petition is not preferred under Employees’ Compensation Act. The justifications forwarded are not tenable.
7. The owner of the offending vehicle further submitted that he has paid the medical expenses incurred in respect of the treatment of the claimant and also speaks that the claimant has not suffered permanent physical disability. The compensation awarded by the tribunal is also just and proper. Insofar as liability is concerned, learned Member is justified in saddling liability on the Insurance Company after assigning cogent and valid reasons and it does not call for interference.
8. In the circumstances, I find no ground to proceed further and the appeal is liable to be rejected at this stage itself. However, learned counsel for the appellant rightly pointed out that the tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a., which appears to be on the higher side and hence, it is reduced to 6% p.a.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The rate of interest is reduced from 9% p.a. to 6% p.a. to that extent, the impugned judgment and award is modified.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj