IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.1856/2017 (MV) BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., M.C. ROAD, MANDYA-571 401 THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, KRISHI BHAVAN BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009 REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER MR. AJAY KUMAR SINHA.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI K.S. LAKSHMINARASAPPA, FOR SRI B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. SMT. PUTTAMMA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O.SHANKAR, RESIDENT OF MALLAIANA DODDI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK-571 401.
2. SRI NAGARAJ E., MAJOR IN AGE S/o SRI ERAIAH R/A NO.10, 3RD CROSS CHIKKANNA LAYOUT, HENNUR KALYANA NAGAR, NEW No.315, BENGALURU-560 043.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SREENIVASAN M.Y., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, R2-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD. 27.04.2017) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.95/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,62,335/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T Appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company against the claimant seeking reduction of compensation awarded in MVC No.95/2015 on 06.12.2016 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Mandya, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on account of injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident occurred on 16.12.2014, said to be due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04/HE-8365 by the 2nd respondent, near Mallaiahnadoddibore situated at Mysuru-Bengaluru Road.
2. The claimant, who is 1st respondent in this appeal, had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming Rs.15,00,000/-compensation with interest at 18% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation on account of following injuries sustained by her in the above mentioned accident:
a) pain in the right leg;
b) Swelling in right leg;
c) Laceration wound over anterior aspect of right leg middle 1/3rd deformity present, abnormal mobility; and d) Swelling over right upper 3rd leg punctured wound over right upper 3rd leg and tenderness present.
3. Further it is the case of the claimant that she was treated as inpatient in the hospital since 16.12.2014 to 01.01.2015 and suffered lot of mental shock, pain and agony. Further, now she cannot walk for long, cannot bend her body and nor sit squat for long time. She states that she was aged about 45 years at the time of accident and earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing Coolie work and Milk Vending.
4. The Tribunal framed the issues to find out whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the rider of motorcycle-1st respondent and whether the claimant is entitled for compensation and if so, at what amount and from whom.
5. Claimant examined herself as PW1 and also got examined Doctor as PW2, and produced Exs.P1 toP27 on her behalf. Insurance Company before the Tribunal denied the accident and injuries sustained by the claimant and totally declined its liability contending that the rider of the motorcycle did not have valid and proper driving licence at the time of accident.
6. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence found that the accident occurred due to negligence of rider-1st respondent sustaining injuries to the claimant and allowed the claim petition in part awarding total compensation of Rs.5,62,335/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation except interest on Rs.30,000/- awarded towards future medical expenses, fastening entire liability on the Insurance Company. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company is before this Court in this appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company and the claimant.
8. The award of the Tribunal in its present form is as under:
inconvenience and loss of future amenities TOTAL Rs.5,62,335/-
9. The learned Tribunal has reckoned monthly income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/-. In this connection learned counsel for the respondent claimant submits that the standard amount considered by the Tribunal regarding the income is being taken at a just rate and he further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are just and reasonable and does not call for interference by this Court. But the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has wrongly considered 30% disability to the whole body, however, the Doctor-PW2 has assessed said disability to particular limb and not for whole body. As such, if it is assessed to whole body it would be 10% i.e. 1/3rd of 30%. He further submits that the compensation awarded under all heads is on the higher side which is liable to be reduced reasonably. Learned counsel for the claimant opposes the same. However, in the context of circumstances, the only point of dispute between the Insurance Company and the claimant is reckoning of disability to the entire body as to whether 30% is granted or 10% as contended by the appellant- Insurance Company and the said point does not require serious calculation or complex analysis. It is needless to say that 30% disability assessed by the Doctor is to a particular limb which would be 10% for whole body. Thus appeal deserves to be allowed to just that extent by way of modification to reach the ends of justice for arriving at just compensation. Consequently, the claimant is entitled to towards loss of future income due to disability as under:
10% of monthly income x 12 months x multiplier 14 = Rs.1,30,400/-
10. By virtue of considering the monthly income at Rs.8,000/- the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards laid up period is just and proper.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that future medical expenses will not be applicable to the case on hand. However, on perusal it is considered that the amount of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the above head is neither unreasonable nor unjust.
12. For the reasons more fully assigned above, appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.95/2015 dated 06.12.2016 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT Mandya is hereby modified by this Court, thereby awarding total compensation of Rs.2,89,535/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation to the respondent claimant in place of Rs.5,62,335/- awarded by the Tribunal and break up will be as under:
Pain and Sufferings Rs.70,000/-
Medical Expenses Rs.3,785/-
Future Medical Expenses Rs.30,000/-
Incidental Expenses Rs.1,350/-
Loss of Income during laid up period Towards loss of income due to Permanent Disability Rs.24,000/- Rs.1,30,400/-
Loss of Amenities Rs.30,000/- TOTAL Rs.2,89,535/-
The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit entire compensation amount with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- shall be transferred to the Tribunal and pass on the intimation to the Tribunal regarding modification of the award.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE SBS*