IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.5342/2019(MV) BETWEEN:
M/S.RELIANCE GENRAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., 1ST FLOOR KRUTHIKA ARCADE HOLENARASIPURA ROAD, HASSAN.
REPRESENTED BY BANGALORE ZONAL OFFICE No.28 5TH FLOOR EAST WING CENTENARY BUILDING MG ROAD, BANGALORE -560 001.
REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL.
(BY SRI RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . SRI MUJAHID S/O RAJAK AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DODDA MOHALLA BAGUR ROAD, CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT.
2 . SRI H N KEMPE GOWDA ...APPELLANT S/O NANJAPPA MAJOR IN AGE RESIDENT OF HOSAHALLI VILLAGE SRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173 (1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.03.2019 PASSED IN MVC No.182/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN (SIT AT CHANNARAYAPATNA), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.8,76,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The matter is listed for admission and having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case, the same is taken up for final disposal.
This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.03.2019 passed in MVC No.182/2017 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan District, (sitting at Channarayapatna), wherein, the claim petition came to be allowed in part granting compensation of Rs.8,76,000/- with interest at 9% p.a.
from the date of petition till its realization and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the same.
2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties herein are referred in accordance with their status held by them before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case of the claimant is as under:
That on 15.12.2015 at about 6.30 p.m. petitioner was proceeding in motor cycle bearing No.KA.11.G.8581 as pillion rider and the driver of the tractor bearing No.KA.13.N.7135 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner’s motor cycle on Sravanabelagola-Channarayapatna road, near railway gate. Due to which, petitioner sustained injuries and he was shifted to General hospital, Channarayapatna through 108 ambulance and then to Nimhans, Bengaluru and to St. John’s hospital Mysore, and he spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- for his treatment.
It is stated that claimant was earning Rs.25,000/- per month as leather business man and now he is unable to do any work. He claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
4. Insurance Company appeared and contested the claim.
5. The learned member adjudicated the matter and he was accommodated with the oral evidence of PW1-Mujahid, RW1-Gurudutt and CW1-Dr.Gautham Gugatati and documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P9, Exs.R1 and R2 and Ex.C1 to C9. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned member allowed the petition in part and awarded the compensation as mentioned above. The same is challenged by the Insurance Company in this appeal.
6. Sri. Ravi S. Samprathi, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the involvement of the vehicle is falsely made. The vehicle did not come into contact with the claimant and he suffered a self fall and sustained injuries. In order to avert loss, he has given a false complaint involving the insured vehicle taking unfair advantage of the injuries and that the income assessed and compensation awarded by the learned member is on the higher side.
7. The claimant is stated to have sustained head injury i.e. diffuse axonal injury. He was treated by CW1 and subjected the claimant with artificial oxygen tube . The same injury is also found by casualty medical officer of K.R. Hospital, Mysore. CW1 states regarding treatment given to petitioner which is supported by medical documents. CW1 has given evidence to the effect that he did surgery of tracheotomy on 19.12.2015 by fixing tube in the neck for breathing and it was removed on 18.1.2016. Doctor has deposed that he examined petitioner on 30.7.2018 and found reduction in memory power and he is suffering from headache and difference in his social activities and he has deposited that claimant is suffering from 50% intellectual impairments and 50% of full body disability. The learned member considered the disability at 25% as per the guidelines issued.
8. Claimant is stated to be a business man by profession and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. The learned member considered his income at Rs.8,000/- per month. Considering income at Rs.8,000/- per month with disability at 25% and applying 18 multiplier awarded Rs.4,32,000/- towards loss of future earnings. The breakup compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under:
Pain and suffering Rs. 60,000/-
Loss of future income and earning capacity Rs. 4,23,000/-
Medical expenses Rs. 2,18,000/- Loss of income during laid off period Rs. 36,000/-
Permanent disability and other incidental heads viz., loss of amenities etc.
Attendant charges, food, diet nourishment and transportation expenses etc.
Rs. 80,000/-
Rs. 50,000/-
Total Rs. 8,76,000/-
9. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that the insurance company is basically not liable to pay compensation as the vehicle is not involved in the accident. The objections to the said extent is contrary to what has been stated by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal which is reflected in the judgment. The disability has also effected the functional intelligence and there is reduction of IQ. In the circumstances, I do not find that the assessment of income is excessive or even higher.
The appeal does not deserves to be proceeded further and it is liable to be rejected at this stage itself. Accordingly, it is rejected.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith.
tsn* Sd/- JUDGE