IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT M.F.A.NO.855/2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN:
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PADMA S. UTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SHANKARA @ SHANKARAPPA, S/O. VENKATARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, ATTIGIRIKOPPA VILLAGE, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 114.
2. KRISHNAPPA, S/O. MUNISWAMY, KUNDARSANHALLI VILLAGE, BATTHALAHALLI POST, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SURESHA.M, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 15.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.2370/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (SCCH- 19), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,90,400/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT This appeal by the insurer lays a challenge to the judgment and award dated 15.11.2018 whereby respondent-claimants in MVC No.2370/2017 having been favoured, the MACT & XV Additional Judge, Mayo hall, Bengaluru (SCCH-19) awarded a compensation of Rs.4,90,400/- with interest @ 9% p.a. subject to a usual condition of bank deposit. After service of notice the respondent-claimant having entered appearance through his counsel, opposes the appeal.
2. Having heard the counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, this court grants a limited indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
a) the contention that in the absence of transport endorsement, the insurer could not have been made liable for discharge of the award liability is rejected in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company and Others, AIR 2017 SC 3668; the other reason for rejecting this contention is that the RTO official was examined on oath and he deposed that the driving license for the subject vehicle is valid and effective; there is no reason to discard this opinion coming in the authoritative way;
b) the contention that the compensation awarded in a sum of Rs.75,000/- under the head of “pain and suffering” is in excess appears to have some force and therefore, the amount is scaled down to Rs.50,000/-; regard being had to all facts and circumstances of the case; the other contention is that the compensation award under other heads is on the higher side having not been substantiated stands rejected; and c) the last contention that the MACT could not have awarded interest @ 9% p.a. when normally admissible rate of interest is 6% is upheld and therefore, the interest rate is slashed down from 9% to 6%, since Section 34 of CPC, 1908 which prescribes 6% interest p.a. is inbuilt in the provisions of M.V. Act, 1988, ordinarily.
In the above circumstances, the appeal having been partly favoured, the impugned judgment and award are modified reducing the compensation from Rs.4,90,400/- to Rs.4,65,365/- with interest @ 6% p.a., all other terms and conditions having been left intact.
Amount in deposit including the statutory one shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional MACT for being released to the claimant, forthwith.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DS