IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR MFA NO 6620 OF 2018 (M V) BETWEEN M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO. 3, 3RD FLOOR JNR CITY CENTRE RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD SAMPANGIRAMNAGAR BANGALORE – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY MANAGER. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPRATHI - ADV.) AND 1. SR JAGANATH S/O RAJU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS NO. 238 NEAR POST OFFICE ROAD DODDAKALLASANDRA BENGALURU – 560 062.
2. SRI BABU H.K. S/O KALEEL MAJOR IN AGE NO.9, 2ND CROSS BEHIND SHANIMAHATAMA TEMPLE RAJANI FARM MAIN ROAD RAJAGOPALANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 058. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRA CHOODA - ADV., FOR C/R-1 NOTICE TO R-2 DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 11.2.2019) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO. 4111/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE 19TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-17) AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.32,39,080/- WITH INTEREST AT 7.5% P.A. (EXCLUDING FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES) FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company and learned counsel for first respondent are present. With their consent the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 01.06.2018 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.4111/2017 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.32,39,080/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. to the claimant.
3. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under:
It is stated in the claim petition that on 20.06.2017 at about quarter to nine in the night, the claimant was on foot on Mysore road, near Kottambari Mandi, at that time a Autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-02/AD-6229 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life, caused accident dashing him from behind. Due to the said impact, petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. He was shifted to Krishna Hospital wherein he took treatment as inpatient. Due to the said accident, he has become disabled. The police have registered case against the driver of the Autorickshaw owned by the first respondent and insured with second respondent. On all these grounds, the claim petition was filed by the claimant seeking compensation.
4. On issuance of notice, second respondent filed written statement denying the petition averments. First respondent was placed exparte. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues. In order to establish the case, petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 and got examined Doctor as PW.2 and Exs.P14 and P15 were marked. Second Respondent did not choose to adduce any evidence. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the insurance company, and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment, awarding compensation of Rs.32,39,080/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation, excluding the future medical expenses. It is this judgment which is challenged by the insurance company by urging various grounds.
5. Learned counsel on both sides have filed a joint memo for having settled the dispute amicably. In terms of the joint memo, the appellant – insurance company has agreed to settle the claim in full and final settlement for a sum of Rs.24,95,000/- and respondent no.1 has agreed for the same. The appellant undertakes to deposit the said amount within six weeks from the date of order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the order.
The joint memo is placed on record. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified in terms of the joint memo. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement. Office is directed to draw the decree accordingly.
In view of disposal of the main appeal, I.A.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, the same is rejected.
SD/- JUDGE DKB