Karnataka High Court
Sri Ravikumar M vs M/S Reliance General Insurance Co ... on 21 January, 2021
Author: Alok Aradhe Rangaswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
M.F.A. NO.3991 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAVIKUMAR.M.,
S/O MADEVA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 16/1,
10TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
K.P. AGRAHARA,
BHUVANESHWARINAGAR,
MAGADI ROAD,
BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE - 560023.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R. LAKSHMANA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BY ITS MANAGER,
NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING,
5TH FLOOR, M.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560001.
2. SRI K B RAGHU
S/O BIRESHAPPA,
YADAVANAHALLI,
GANDASI HOBLI,
ARASIKERE TALUK,
2
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. T.M.VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.01.2016 PASSED IN
MVC NO.1019/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL
MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
NATARAJ RANGASWAMY, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded by the
Member, Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru (SCCH-1) [hereinafter referred to as "the
Tribunal" for short] in MVC No.1019/2015.
2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, the
same is taken up for the final disposal with the consent of
the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The claim petition discloses that on
22.02.2015, when the claimant was riding his motor cycle
bearing registration No.KA-03-EJ-8571 near 5th Cross,
K.P.Agrahara, the driver of a Tempo Traveler bearing
registration No.KA-06-C-2106 (hereinafter referred to as
the "offending vehicle"), drove it in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the motor cycle.
4. As a result, the claimant suffered injuries and
was shifted to K.C.General Hospital, where he availed
treatment as an inpatient. The claimant claimed that he
had spent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment and
that he was 21 years old and was employed as a machine
runner in a private garment factory and was earning a sum
of Rs.15,000/- per month. He claimed that as a result of
the accident, he had lost his ability to be employed and
therefore, he was deprived of his ability to earn income.
The claimant alleged negligence by the driver of the
offending vehicle and filed a claim petition under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 claiming compensation
of a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-.
5. The owner filed a written statement alleging
that the accident was due to the rash and negligent riding
by the claimant and that he was responsible for the
accident. He further contended that the person who was
driving the offending vehicle was not the person who was
shown in the charge sheet filed by the police and that the
driver was swapped since the person who was driving the
offending vehicle did not possess a licence. Based on
these rival contentions, the claim petition was set down for
trial after framing issues.
6. The Tribunal held that the accident was due to
the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the
offending vehicle and the contention of the insurer that
there was contributory negligence on the part of the
claimant was negatived by the Tribunal. It noticed that the
insurer had not examined the driver of the offending
vehicle to establish the contributory negligence.
7. In so far as the claim for compensation is
concerned, the Tribunal noticed that the claimant was aged
21 years and that he did not have any proof of income.
Therefore, it considered the notional income of the
claimant at a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month and it also
noticed the evidence of PW2 who was a doctor who
deposed that the claimant had suffered disability to the
extent of 38% to the right lower limb and consequently,
the Tribunal held that the claimant had suffered a whole
body disability of 13% and awarded the following
compensation.
Sl. Heads under which Amount in
No. compensation awarded Rupees
1 Pain and suffering 40,000
2 Medical Expenses 21,000
Loss of income during the period of
3 32,000
inpatient and period of treatment
Food and nourishment,
4 conveyance, attendant charges and 25,000
another incidental expenses
Future loss of earning due to
5 2,24,640
disability
6 Loss of amenities 30,000
Total 3,72,640
8. In so far as the liability to pay the
compensation is concerned, it noticed that the offending
vehicle was covered by the policy of insurance. Therefore,
held that the insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to
pay the compensation along with interest at the rate of 9%
per annum from the date of claim petition, till the date of
realization.
9. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation, the claimant is in appeal and contends that
the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the
deceased as per Ex.P12 which was a salary certificate and
that the Tribunal committed an error in ignoring the salary
certificate only on the ground that the claimant had not
examined the author of Ex.P12. He contended that he was
a machine operator and therefore, he had technical
expertise and that his income could not be treated on par
with a manual labourer.
10. Per contra, the insurer contended that the
Tribunal had assessed the compensation based on
reasonable criteria and the evidence on record and that
the Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 9% per
annum which was unreasonable and therefore, requested
this Court not to interfere with the Judgment and Award
passed by the Tribunal.
11. We have given our anxious consideration to
the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the
parties and we have perused the records of the Tribunal as
well as its Judgment and Award.
12. The Tribunal was justified in upholding that the
accident was due to the rash and negligent driving on the
part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Neither the
insurer, nor the owner has challenged this finding of the
Tribunal which has become final.
13. In so far as the claim for compensation is
concerned, the Tribunal held that the claimant had
suffered a whole body disability at 13% taking into account
the 38% disability to the right lower limb which is in
accordance with law and as per the guidelines issued by
the Government of India regarding quantification of
disability. In so far as the notional income of the claimant
is concerned, the Legal Services Authority has prescribed a
sum of Rs.9,000/- as the notional income and therefore,
only in so far as this aspect is concerned, the Judgment
and Award of the Tribunal deserves to be interfered with.
Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
reassessed as follows:
Sl. Heads under which Amount in
No. compensation awarded Rupees
1 Pain and suffering 40,000
2 Medical Expenses 21,000
Loss of income during the period of
3 36,000
inpatient and period of treatment
Food and nourishment,
4 conveyance, attendant charges and 25,000
another incidental expenses
Future loss of earning due to
5 2,52,720
disability (Rs.9000x12x13x18/100)
6 Loss of amenities 30,000
7 Future medical expenses 10,000
Total 4,14,720
14. In view of the above, the claimant is entitled to
a total compensation of sum of Rs.4,14,720/-.
15. Consequently, this appeal is allowed in part
and the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the
Tribunal in MVC No.1019/2015 is modified and the
compensation of Rs.3,72,640/- is enhanced to a sum of
Rs.4,14,720/-. The compensation reassessed by this Court
shall be payable by the insurer of the offending vehicle
along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the
date of claim petition, till the date of realization.
16. The insurer shall deposit the compensation as
reassessed by this Court within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
GH
