IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.7505 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
The Regional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, No.144, Shubharam Complex, 2nd Floor, M.G.Road, Bangalore-560 001.
By its Manager (By Sri O Mahesh, Advocate) AND:
…Appellant 1. Narayanaswamy, Aged 54 years, S/o Late Chikkavalappa, R/at C/o Narayanappa, Attibele Mane, Sadar Street, Attibele, Bangalore Rural District-560 063.
Native of No.376, Choulagatta-I, Cholagatta Yane Gare Hatti, Chitradurga-577 502.
2. K.Bharath, Major, S/o Padmayya Poojary, Kombra House, Shishila Village and post, Balethangady Taluk, Dakshina Kannada, Kanara South-574 190.
(Sri P Suresh, Advocate for R1 R2-served) …Respondents This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 03.05.2013 passed in MVC No.6670/2011 on the file of the VII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore awarding compensation of Rs.2,25,865/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
This M.F.A. coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the insurer of the offending vehicle challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on the ground of quantum and seeking reduction of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. With the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the appeal is heard and disposed of finally. Perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
3. As there is no dispute regarding certain injuries sustained by the claimant in a road traffic accident occurred on 15.08.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of an Auto bearing registration No.KA- 21-A-3587 by its driver and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that arises for consideration in the appeal is:
“Whether quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for reduction?”
4. Sri O Mahesh, learned counsel for the insurer of the offending vehicle submits that even though claimant examined as PW1, has admitted in his evidence that there is facility of reimbursement of medical expenses in his department and he can produce a document to show that he did claim/reimbursement of medical expenses and having failed to do so, the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding a sum of Rs.27,465/- towards medical expenses. He further submits that PW1 has clearly admitted in his evidence that he continued in his employment and there is hike in his salary, the Tribunal without considering the same has committed an error in awarding Rs.1,58,400/- towards loss of future income. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal by reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
5. Sri P Suresh, learned counsel appearing for claimant-respondent No.1 submits that claimant has not claimed reimbursement of medical expenses from his employer. He submits when the insurer has sought for a clarification from the employer of the claimant as to whether claimant had claimed the reimbursement of medical expenses, the employer by letter dated 23.08.2013 informed the insurance Company that claimant had not claimed reimbursement of medical expenses. He fairly submits that Rs.1,58,400/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of future income may not be correct and the said amount may be awarded under the head of disability and loss of amenities.
6. There is no dispute regarding compensation of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards injury, pain and suffering, Rs.13,000/- awarded towards incidental expenses and Rs.12,000/- awarded towards loss of income during laid up period.
7. Dispute is whether Rs.27,465/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses and Rs.1,58,400/- under the heading disability by calculating the same in the form of loss of future income are just and proper or not. Claimant had produced the original medical bills for Rs.27,465/-. If the claimant had taken or claimed reimbursement of medical bills, he could not have produced the original medical bills before the Tribunal which were marked as Ex.P16 to P44 along with prescriptions as Ex.P45 to P55. On the other hand, the letter dated 23.08.2013 addressed by the Insurance Company to the Karnataka State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited-the employer of the claimant would show that claimant had not claimed reimbursement of medical expenses. Therefore, Tribunal was justified in awarding Rs.27,465/- towards medical expenses.
8. It is not the case of the claimant that after sustaining injuries, he discontinued his employment as Junior Assistant at the Karnataka State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited. If that is so, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding Rs.1,58,400/- under the heading disability by calculating the said amount as loss of future income. Nevertheless, claimant having suffered disability of 17% to the whole body has to bear with the said disability and certain amount of discomfort and unhappiness in his future life, considering the same a sum of Rs.85,000/- is awarded towards disability and amenities as against Rs.1,58,400/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head disability calculating it as loss of future income.
9. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reassessed as under:
10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part.
The judgment and award dated 03.05.2013 passed by the VII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore in MVC No.6670/2011, stands modified. The claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,82,465/- as against Rs.2,55,865/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount together with interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited.
12. Amount if any deposited in the above appeal with interest if any accrued thereon shall be transmitted to the tribunal for disbursement in favour of the claimant in terms of the award of the Tribunal.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE SB