Karnataka High Court
M/S Reliance General Insurance Co ... vs Kantharaju on 5 January, 2021
Author: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.50 OF 2013(MV)
C/W
MFA NOs.4499/2013(MV), 4500/2013(MV),
4501/2013(MV), 49/2013(MV), 51/2013(MV) &
52/2013(MV)
IN MFA 50/2013
BETWEEN:
M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.4/3/1 AND 3/2M, 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 011.
NOW BY
#28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR,
CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS ZONAL SR.MANAGER.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.D.S.SRIDHAR, ADV. )
AND
1. KANTHARAJU
S/O SRI. REVANNA SIDDAIAH
AGED 40 YEARS
AVARAHALLI VILLAGE & POST
KAILANCHA HOBLI,
2
RMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT-571511.
2. V.RAMESH
S/O VARDE GOWDA, MAJOR
M/S MANJUNATHA TRANSPORT
NO.330/5, 1ST CROSS, YEDIYUR
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 070.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.N.HARISH BABU, ADV. FOR R1:
APPEAL DISMISSED AGAINST R2
V/O DATED:22.03.2018)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:04.09.2012 PASSED IN MVC No.6201/2010 ON
THE FILE OF THE 22ND ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT,
BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,15,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
IN MFA 4499/2013
BETWEEN:
RAJASHEKHARAPPA
S/O SHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
C/O #56, 3RD MAIN, 1ST CROSS
NEW EXTENSION
NEAR GOVERNMENT P.U.COLLEGE
K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560 036.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.K.N.HARISH BABU, ADV. )
3
AND
1. MR. V.RAMESH
S/O VARDE GOWDA, AGED MAJOR
M/S MANJUNATHA TRANSPORT
NO.330/5, 1ST CROSS
YEDIYUR, 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 011.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.4/3-1 AND 3/2M 11TH MAIN,
3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 061.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CENTRAL OFFICE, KSRTC
K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 027.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.1001/56, JAYALAKSHMI MANSON
2ND FLOOR, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D.S. SRIDHAR, ADV. FOR R2:
SRI.B.PALAKSHAIAH, ADV. FOR R3:
SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:04.09.2012 PASSED IN MVC No.4903/2010
4
ON THE FILE OF THE 22ND ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT,
BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATIONS.
IN MFA 4500/2013
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHIVA SHANKAR
S/O LATE K.T. BALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
NO.664/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD
RANGANATHAPURA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD
VIJAYANAGAR-NORTH, BANGALORE-560 079.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.K.N.HARISH BABU, ADV.)
AND
1. MR. V.RAMESH
S/O VARDE GOWDA, AGED MAJOR
M/S MANJUNATHA TRANSPORT
NO.330/5, 1ST CROSS
YEDIYUR, 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 011.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.4/3-1 AND 3/2M 11TH MAIN,
3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 061.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D.S. SRIDHAR, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
5
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:04.09.2012 PASSED IN MVC No.6200/2010 ON
THE FILE OF THE 22ND ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT,
BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATIONS.
IN MFA 4501/2013
BETWEEN:
SRI.NANJUNDAPPA
S/O LATE. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NO.2, NARASIMHA NILAYA
SIMHA LAYOUT
UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE-560 061.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.K.N.HARISH BABU, ADV. )
AND
1. MR. V.RAMESH
S/O VARDE GOWDA, AGED MAJOR
M/S MANJUNATHA TRANSPORT
NO.330/5, 1ST CROSS
YEDIYUR, 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 011.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.4/3-1 AND 3/2M 11TH MAIN,
6
3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 061.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CENTRAL OFFICE, KSRTC
K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 027.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.1001/56, JAYALAKSHMI MANSON
2ND FLOOR, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D.S. SRIDHAR, ADV. FOR R2:
SRI.B.PALAKSHAIAH, ADV. FOR R3:
SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADV. FOR R4:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED:06.11.2019)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:04.09.2012 PASSED IN MVC No.4902/2010 ON
THE FILE OF THE 22ND ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT,
BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATIONS.
IN MFA 49/2013
BETWEEN:
M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.4/3/1 AND 3/2M, 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK
7
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 011.
NOW BY
#28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR,
CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS ZONAL SR.MANAGER.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.D.S.SRIDHAR, ADV. )
AND
1. RAJASHEKARAPPA
S/O SRI.SHANKARAPPA
AGED 36 YEARS
C/O NO.56, 3RD MAIN
FIRST CROSS, NEW EXTENSION
NEAR GOVT,P.U.COLLEGE
K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560 079.
2. V.RAMESH
S/O VARDE GOWDA, MAJOR
M/S MANJUNATHA TRANSPORT
NO.330/5, 1ST CROSS, YEDIYUR
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 070.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CENTRAL OFFICE
KSRTC, K.H. ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 027.
4. M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.1001/56, JALAKSHMI MANSON
2ND FLOOR, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD
8
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.N.HARISH BABU, ADV. FOR R1:
R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED:
SRI. B.PALAKSHAIAH, ADV. FOR R3:
SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADV.FOR R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:04.09.2012 PASSED IN MVC No.4903/2010 ON
THE FILE OF THE 22ND ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT,
BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.3,40,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% FOR
RS.3,15,000/- EXCULDING FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES
(OF RS.25000/-. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
DEPOSIT.
IN MFA 51/2013
BETWEEN:
M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.4/3/1 AND 3/2M, 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 011.
NOW BY
#28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR,
CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS ZONAL SR.MANAGER.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.D.S.SRIDHAR, ADV. )
9
AND
1. SHIVASHANKAR
S/O LATE. SRI. K.T.BALAKRISHNA
AGED 48 YEARS
NO.664/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD
RANGANATHAPURA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD
VIJAYANAGARA NORTH
BANGALORE-560 079.
2. V.RAMESH
S/O VARDE GOWDA, MAJOR
M/S MANJUNATHA TRANSPORT
NO.330/5, 1ST CROSS, YEDIYUR
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 070.
.
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.N.HARISH BABU, ADV. FOR R1:
APPEAL DISMISSED AGAINST R2
V/O DATED:22.03.2018)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:04.09.2012 PASSED IN MVC No.6200/2010 ON
THE FILE OF THE 22ND ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT,
BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,64,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FOR
Rs.4,49,500/- (EXCULDING FUTURE MEDICAL
EXPENSES OF RS.15000/-) FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
10
IN MFA 52/2013
BETWEEN:
M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.4/3/1 AND 3/2M, 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 011.
NOW BY
#28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR,
CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS ZONAL SR.MANAGER.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.D.S.SRIDHAR, ADV. )
AND
1. NANJUNDAPPA
S/O LATE. SRI. NARYANAPPA
AGED 54 YEARS
NO.2, NARASIMHA NILAYA
SIMHA LAYOUT, CHIKKALLASNADRA
UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE-560 061.
2. V.RAMESH
S/O VARDE GOWDA, MAJOR
M/S MANJUNATHA TRANSPORT
NO.330/5, 1ST CROSS, YEDIYUR
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 070.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CENTRAL OFFICE
KSRTC, K.H. ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
11
BANGALORE-560 027.
4. M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.1001/56, JALAKSHMI MANSON
2ND FLOOR, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.N.HARISH BABU, ADV. FOR R1:
APPEAL IS DISMISSED AGAINST R2
V/O DATED:22.03.2018
SRI. B.PALAKSHAIAH, ADV. FOR R3:
SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADV.FOR R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:04.09.2012 PASSED IN MVC No.4902/2010 ON
THE FILE OF THE 22ND ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT,
BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.2,95,800/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% FOR
RS.2,65,800/- EXCULDING FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES
(OF RS.30000/-. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
DEPOSIT.
THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA.Nos.50/2013, 52/2013, 51/2013 and 49/2013
are filed by the Insurance Company and
MFA.Nos.4501/2013, 4500/2013 and 4499/2013 are
filed by the claimants, under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act', for short) have been filed being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 04.09.2012 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal. Since, all these appeals arise
out of the same accident as well as a common
judgment, they were heard together and are being
decided by this common judgment.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals
briefly stated are that on 20.06.2010 at about 3.00
a.m., the claimant in MVC.No.6201/2010 as a driver and
claimant in MVC.No.6200/2010 as a conductor and
inmates were traveling in KSRTC bus bearing
Reg.No.KA-42/F-191, from Mysore to Bangalore on
B.M.Road, near Kallugoppahalli Village, Bidadi Hobli,
Ramanagara Taluk, at that time, the KSRTC bus,
being driven by its driver, dashed against a Lorry
bearing Reg.No.KA-05/D-1436, which was parked on the
road without putting parking signal, headlights and any
indicator. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the
claimants sustained injuries and were hospitalized.
3. The claimants filed their respective petitions
under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the
claimant in MVC.4902/2010 was doing mason work and
was earning Rs.300/- per day, the claimant in
MVC.No.6201/2010 was a driver in KSRTC bus and was
earning Rs.11,000/- per month, the claimant in
MVC.4903/2010 was a Senior Officer at M/s. Jubliant
Organization Ltd., Nanjangudu and was drawing salary
of 26,000/- per month and the claimant in
MVC.6200/2010 was a Conductor in KSRTC Bus and was
drawing a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. The
claimants claimed compensation as stated in their
respective petitions along with interest.
4. On service of summons, the respondents
appeared through their counsel and filed their detailed
written statement, in which the averments made in the
petition were denied. It was pleaded by the respondent
No.1 that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the
eye of law. It was further pleaded that the accident was
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of KSRTC bus
and it was not due to any negligence on the part of the
driver of Lorry. It was further pleaded that the
offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and
the policy was in force as on the date of accident and
the liability, if any, is to be paid by the respondent No.2.
Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
It was pleaded by respondent No.2 that the
averments made in column Nos.1 to 22 are denied. It
was further pleaded that the accident was occurred
solely on the negligent driving of the driver of KSRTC
bus and it was not due to any negligent on the part of
the driver of the lorry. It was further pleaded that the
driver of the lorry was holding a valid and effective
driving licence as on the date of accident. It was further
pleaded that the policy was in force as on the date of
accident and the liability, if any, is subject to terms and
conditions of the policy. Hence, he sought for dismissal
of the petition.
It was pleaded by respondent No.3 that the
averments made at column Nos.1 to 22 are denied. It
was further pleaded that the driver of KSRTC Bus drove
the same slowly and cautiously and the accident was
occurred only due to negligent parking of the Lorry in
the middle of the road by its driver. It was further
pleaded that KSRTC Bus was insured with respondent
No.4 and the policy was in force as on the
date of accident and the liability, if any, is to be paid
by respondent No.4. Hence, he sought for dismissal of
the claim petition.
It was pleaded by respondent No.4 that the
averments made at column Nos.1 to 22 are denied. It
was further pleaded that the accident was occurred due
to negligence on the part of the driver of Lorry and
there was no negligence on the part of the driver of Bus.
It was further pleaded that the policy was in force as on
the date of accident and the liability, if any, is subject to
terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, he sought for
dismissal of the claim petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter
recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove
their case, examined claimant Nanjundappa in
MVC.4902/2010, claimant Shivashankar H.B. in
MVC.6200/2010, claimant Kantharaj in
MVC.6201/2010, claimant R ajashekarappa in
MVC.4903/2010 as PWs-1 to 4 respectively and
examined Dr.Mallinath as PW-5 and got exhibited 40
documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P40. On behalf of
respondents, examined two witnesses as RW-1 and
RW.2 and they have not exhibited any documents. The
Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia,
held that the accident took place on account of
contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of
both the vehicles i.e., Lorry to the extent of 70% and
KSRTC Bus to the extent of 30%, as a result of which,
the claimants sustained injuries. The Tribunal further
held that claimants in MVC.Nos.4902/2010, 4903/2010,
6200/2010 and 6201/2010 are entitled to a
compensation of Rs.2,95,800/-, Rs.3,40,000/-,
Rs.1,64,500/- and Rs.1,15,500/- respectively along with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the
insurer of Lorry and KSRTC Bus to deposit the
compensation amount at the ratio of 70% and 30%
respectively along with interest. Being aggrieved, these
appeals have been filed.
IN MFA.50/2013 arising out of MVC.6201/2010:
6. Sri. D.S.Sridhar, the learned counsel for
Insurance Company has raised the following
contentions:
Firstly, due to the accident the injuries suffered by
the claimant are minor in nature and there is no loss of
income due to disability. The Tribunal is not justified in
granting Rs.75,000/- under the head of 'loss of income
due to disability'.
Secondly, the claimant was inpatient for a period
of 5 days and the injuries suffered by the claimant are
minor in nature. The compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the heads of 'pain and sufferings' and
'loss of amenities' are on the higher side. Hence, he
sought for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the claimant has raised the following counter-
contentions:
Firstly, at the time of accident the claimant was a
driver in KSRTC Bus, due to the injury suffered in
accident he is unable to discharge his day today work.
Secondly, due to the accident claimant has
suffered grievous injuries and he was inpatient for a
period of 5 days. He has suffered lot of pain during the
treatment and he has to suffer with the disability and
unhappiness throughout his life. Therefore, the Tribunal
considering the evidence of the parties, has awarded
just and reasonable compensation. Hence, the learned
counsel for the claimant prays for dismissal of the
appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has
suffered injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on
20.06.2010 due to contributory negligence on the part
of driver of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-05/D-1436 and
driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-42/F-191. Due
to the accident the claimant has suffered blunt injury to
abdominal trauma with mesenteric.
Even though the claimant has claimed that he was
employed as a driver in KSRTC Bus and was earning
Rs.11,000/- per month, but he has not produced any
documents to establish the same. Due to the
accident, he has suffered above injuries, he was
inpatient for a period of 8 days, but he has not
examined the treated doctor to show that due to
disability the claimant has suffered loss of income.
Taking into consideration the evidence of claimant
and wound certificate, Ex.P18, I am of the opinion that,
total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance
Company in MFA No.50/2013 is dismissed.
************
IN MFA.52/2013 C/W.4501/2013 arising out of
MVC.4902/2010:
10. Sri. D.S.Sridhar, the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company has raised the following
contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant has claimed that
he was earning Rs.9,000/- per month, but he has not
produced any documents to establish the same. The
Tribunal is not justified in taking monthly income of the
claimant as Rs.5,000/-, which is on the higher side.
Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant
are minor in nature, the whole body disability
assessed by the doctor at 17% is on the higher side.
The Tribunal is not justified in granting compensation
under the head of 'loss of income due to disability'.
Thirdly, the claimant was inpatient for a period of 6
days, the fractures are reunited. The compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and
sufferings' and 'loss of amenities' are on the higher side.
Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal filed by the
Insurance Company and dismissing the appeal filed by
the claimant.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the claimant has raised the following counter-
contentions:
Firstly, at the time of accident the claimant was
earning Rs.9,000/- per month by doing mason work.
The Tribunal is not justified in taking monthly income of
the claimant as Rs.5,000/-. Due to the accident he
is unable to do his day today work and there is loss of
income due to disability.
Secondly, due to the accident claimant has
suffered grievous injuries and he was inpatient for a
period of 6 days. He has examined the doctor, who has
assessed whole body disability at 17%. He has suffered
lot of pain during the treatment and he has to suffer
with the disability and unhappiness throughout his life.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the
heads of 'loss of amenities' and 'conveyance' are on the
lower side.
Thirdly, even though the doctor has assessed
whole body disability at 17%, but the Tribunal has
considered only 13%, the same is contrary to the
materials available on record. Hence, he sought for
allowing the appeal filed by the claimant and
dismissing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
13. In respect of liability is concerned:
It is not in dispute that the claimant has suffered
injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on
20.06.2010 due to contributory negligence on the part
of driver of Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-05/D-1436 and
KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA42/F-191 by its driver.
The corporation has not challenged the same. Due to
the accident the claimant has suffered injuries as
mentioned in Ex.P6.
Even though the claimant has claimed that he was
earning Rs.9,000/- per month, but he has not
produced any documents to establish the same.
Under this circumstance, the notional income has to
be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the
accident has taken place in the year 2010, the
notional income has been fixed at Rs.5,500/- per month.
Accordingly, the monthly income of the claimant is
considered as Rs.5,500/-. Due to the accident the
claimant has suffered grievous injuries as per Ex.P6.
The claimant has examined the doctor, who has
assessed disability at 17% to the whole body. Taking
into consideration the evidence of the parties, the
Tribunal has rightly assessed whole body disability at
13%.
At the time of accident, claimant was aged about
52 years and multiplier applicable to his age group is
'11'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of
Rs.94,380/- (Rs.5,500*12*11*13%) on account of 'loss
of future income'.
Since the monthly income of the claimant is
enhanced to Rs.5,500/-, the claimant is entitled for
compensation of Rs.16,500/- (Rs.5,500*3 months)
under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.
Due to the accident the claimant has suffered
injuries as per Ex.P6. He has examined the doctor, who
has assessed disability at 17% to the whole body. He
was inpatient for a period of 8 days, he has suffered lot
of pain during the treatment and he has to suffer with
the disability and unhappiness throughout his life.
Taking into consideration the evidence of the doctor and
evidence of the claimant, I am inclined to enhance the
sum awarded under the head of 'loss of amenities' from
Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.
Due to the accident the claimant has suffered
grievous injuries, the doctor has assessed disability at
17% to the whole body and has deposed that the
claimant may be require another Rs.50,000/- for
further surgery. Taking into consideration the
evidence of the doctor and evidence of the claimant,
compensation awarded under the head of 'future
medical expenses' has to be enhanced from Rs.30,000/-
to Rs.50,000/-.
14. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under other heads is just and reasonable.
15. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following
compensation:
As awarded As awarded
Compensation under by the by this
different Heads Tribunal Court
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Pain and suffering 50,000 50,000
Medical, attendant, 1,05,000 1,05,000
conveyance &
nourishment charges
Loss of income during 15,000 16,500
laid up period
Loss of future earnings 85,800 94,380
due to disability
Future medical expenses 30,000 50,000
Loss of amenities 25,000 50,000
Total 3,10,800 3,65,880
The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.3,65,880/-.
The insurers of both vehicles i.e., Lorry and KSRTC
Bus are directed to deposit the compensation amount at
the ratio of 70% and 30% respectively along with
interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date
of realization, within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this judgment, excluding
interest for the compensation awarded under the head
of 'future medical expenses'.
Since both the insurers were satisfied with the
finding given by the Tribunal regarding contributory
negligence, the same is upheld.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the
Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, MFA Nos.52/2013 and 4501/2013 are
disposed of.
*******************
IN MFA.49/2013 C/W.4499/2013 arising out of
MVC.4903/2010:
16. Sri. D.S.Sridhar, the learned counsel for
Insurance Company has raised the following
contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant has claimed that
he was employed as Senior Officer at M/s. Jubliant
Organisation Ltd., Nanjangudu and was drawing salary
of Rs.30,000/- per month, but he has not produced any
documents to establish the same
Secondly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are
minor in nature and he was inpatient for a period of 6
days, but he has not examined the treated doctor to
prove that due to disability the claimant has suffered
loss of income due to disability. The compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of
income due to disability' is not based on the
materials available on record and there is no loss of
income due to disability.
Thirdly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
on other heads are on the higher side. Hence, he
sought for allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance
Company and dismissing the appeal filed by the
claimant.
17. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the claimant has raised the following counter-
contentions:
Firstly, at the time of accident the claimant was
aged about 35 years and was employed as Senior
Officer at M/s. Jubliant Organization Ltd., Nanjangudu
and was drawing salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. Due
to the accident the claimant has suffered grievous
injuries and he was inpatient for a period of 7 days. He
has suffered lot of pain during the treatment and he
has to suffer with the disability and unhappiness
throughout his life. Therefore, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of
income due to disability' is on the lower side.
Secondly, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.
Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal filed by the
claimant and dismissing the appeal filed by the
Insurance Company.
18. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
19. It is not in dispute that the claimant has
suffered injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on
20.06.2010 due to contributory negligence on the part
of drivers of Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-05/D-1436 and
KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA42/F-191. The
corporation has not challenged the same.
Even though the claimant has claimed that at the
time of accident he was employed as Senior Officer at
M/s. Jubliant Organisation Ltd., Nanjangudu and was
drawing salary of Rs.25,000/- per month, he has
produced only salary slip, but he has not produced any
statement of bank account and he has not examined the
author of the said document to prove the same.
Due to the accident the claimant has suffered
injuries and he was inpatient for a period of 7 days, but
he has not examined the treated doctor to show that
due to disability the claimant has suffered loss of
income. Taking into consideration the injuries suffered
by the claimant and considering the evidence of the
parties, the Tribunal has rightly granted just and
reasonable compensation.
Accordingly, MFA Nos.49/2013 and 4499/2013 are
dismissed.
************
IN MFA.51/2013 C/w. MFA.4500/2013 arising out of
MVC.6200/2010:
20. Sri. D.S.Sridhar, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant has claimed that he
was a conductor and drawing salary of Rs.7,610/- per
month, but he has not produced any documents to
establish the same. Due to the accident he has not
suffered any loss of income due to disability and he has
continued his work. Therefore, he is not entitled to the
compensation under the head of 'loss of income due to
disability'.
Secondly, the claimant was inpatient for a
period of 9 days. The injuries suffered by the claimant
are minor in nature. The compensation awarded under
the other heads are on the higher side. Hence, he
sought for allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance
Company and dismissing the appeal filed by the
claimant.
21. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the claimant has raised the following counter-
contentions:
Firstly, at the time of accident the claimant was a
conductor in KSRTC Bus and was drawing salary of
Rs.7,610/- per month and in view of the change of
nature of work, he is drawing salary of Rs.6,500/- per
month. Therefore, now the claimant is getting
comparatively lesser salary. The compensation awarded
by the Tribunal under the other heads are on the lower
side.
Secondly, the claimant has suffered two grievous
injuries and he was inpatient for a period of 9 days.
Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal filed by the
claimant and dismissing the appeal filed by the
Insurance Company.
22. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
23. It is not in dispute that the claimant has
suffered injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on
20.06.2010 due to contributory negligence on the part
of drivers of Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-05/D-1436 and
KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA42/F-191. The
corporation has not challenged the same.
The claimant has claimed that at the time of
accident he was working as conductor in KSRTC Bus and
was drawing salary of Rs.7,610/- per month and due to
disability there is change of nature of work, in view of
the change of nature of work, he is drawing salary of
Rs.6,500/- per month and thereby, he is getting
comparatively lesser salary. The claimant has not
examined the doctor who treated him to prove the
same. Therefore, considering the materials available
on record and nature of injuries suffered by the
claimant, the Tribunal has rightly awarded just and
reasonable compensation under the head of loss of
income due to disability. The claimant was inpatient for
a period of 9 days. Taking into consideration the age
and avocation of the claimant, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal on the other heads are just and
reasonable.
Accordingly, MFA Nos.52/2013 and 4501/2013 are
disposed of. MFA Nos.49/2013, 4499/2013, 50/2013,
52/2013 and 4501/2013 are dismissed.
The amount in deposit in MFA Nos.49/2013,
50/2013, 51/2013 and 52/2013 before this Court shall
be transferred to the claims Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Mkm/-
