Karnataka High Court

Banappa K G vs Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd on 7 June, 2021

Author: H.P.Sandesh

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

            DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

                  M.F.A.NO.1111/2017 (MV)
                            C/W.
                  M.F.A.NO.6937/2016 (MV)

IN M.F.A.NO.1111/2017:


BETWEEN:

BANAPPA K.G.
S/O. GOVINDAPPA
AGED 37 YEARS
R/O NO.5, AMBEDKARNAGAR
3RD CROSS "A" STREET
CHIKKABOMMASANDRA CROSS
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BENGALURU-64
                                            ... APPELLANT

             (BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR T, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       BY ITS MANAGER
       NO.28, CENTINARY BUILDING
       EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR
       NEAR CITI BANK, M.G.ROAD
       BENGALURU-1

2.     M.VENKATESHAPPA
       S/O LATE VEERANNA B
       AGE: MAJOR
                             2



       R/O G 2S, STAR NURSES QTRS
       SC HOSPITAL COMPOUND
       HASSAN-573201
                                         ... RESPONDENTS

            (BY SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
           SRI GOVARDHANA R., ADVOCATE FOR R2)


     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.08.2016
PASSED IN MVC.NO.4046/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION      AND     SEEKING    ENHANCEMENT     OF
COMPENSATION.

IN M.F.A.NO.6937/2016:

BETWEEN:

       THE LEGAL MANAGER
       RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       REGIONAL OFFICE
       5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING
       NO.28, M.G.ROAD
       BENGALURU-560001
                                           ... APPELLANT

               (BY SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.     BANAPPA K.G.
       S/O GOVINDAPPA
       NOW AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
       R/AT NO.5, AMBEDKARNAGAR
       3RD CROSS "A" STREET
       CHIKKABOMMASANDRA CROSS
       YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
       BENGALURU-64
                                 3



2.    M.VENKATESHAPPA
      S/O LATE VEERANNA B
      AGE: MAJOR
      R/AT G 2 S, STAR NURSES QTRS
      SC HOSPITAL COMPOUND
      HASSAN-19
                                              ... RESPONDENTS

         (BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR T., ADVOCATE FOR
         SRI H.K.BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
 VIDE ORDER DATED 13.06.2017 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED
                         WITH)


     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.08.2016
PASSED IN MVC.NO.4046/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES,    BENGALURU,    AWARDING    COMPENSATION    OF
Rs.11,40,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

     THESE MFAs' COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH
'VIDEO CONFERENCE' THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

Though the appeals are listed for admission today, with

the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties,

the same are taken up for final disposal.

2. These two appeals are filed by the claimant and the

Insurance Company, respectively, challenging the Judgment and

Award passed in M.V.C.No.4046/2015 dated 18.08.2016 on the

file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT., Bengaluru

(SCCH-18) ('the Tribunal' for short), questioning the quantum of

compensation as awarded by the Tribunal.

3. The parties are referred to as per their original

rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the

convenience of the Court.

4. The factual matrix of the case is that on 29.07.2015

at about 5:30 p.m., the petitioner was riding his motorcycle

bearing registration No.KA-06-EJ-6001 from Sira towards

Mariyapalya in a slow and cautious manner and when he reached

near Kannahalli of Madhugiri Taluk, at that time, the driver of

the Car bearing registration No.KA-18-M-7521 drove the same in

a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner's

motorcycle. Due to the said impact, the petitioner fell down on

the road along with his motorcycle and sustained grievous

injuries.

5. The claimant in the claim petition has contended that

he was met with an accident on 29.07.2015 at about 5:30 p.m,

and he had suffered permanent disability on account of the

injuries sustained by him.

6. The claimant in order to substantiate his case, he

examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined the Doctor as

P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P14. On the

other hand, the respondents have not examined any witness and

also not marked any documents. The Tribunal, after considering

both oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed

the claim petition of the petitioner in part granting compensation

of Rs.11,40,000/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of

petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the Judgment

and Award of the Tribunal both claimant and Insurance Company

have preferred these two appeals, respectively.

7. The appellant/Insurance Company in MFA

No.6937/2016 has contended that the Tribunal has committed

an error in awarding higher compensation on all the heads. The

Tribunal has committed an error in taking the whole body

disability at 23%. In fact, the Doctor has assessed the disability

at 39% to the right lower limb and 39% to the left lower limb.

The Tribunal has committed an error in granting an interest at

the rate of 9% p.a. instead of 6% p.a.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in

MFA No.1111/2017 would vehemently contend that the Tribunal

has committed an error in awarding meager compensation. The

appellant was an inpatient for a period of 20 days and he was

undergone operation with internal fixation. Later, he was taken

to NIMHANS Hospital, M.S.Ramaiah Hospital and Fortis Hospital

and also he had taken the follow up treatment. The appellant

claimed the expenses of Rs.5 Lakhs claiming that he was earning

Rs.500/- per day working as Coolie and he was aged about 35

years. The Tribunal has committed an error in taking the income

of Rs.8,000/- per month; though he was suffered multiple

fractures the disability taken as 23% to the whole body, but the

Doctor has assessed 26% disability to the whole body. The

Tribunal ought to have awarded an interest at the rate of 12%

p.a. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

9. Having heard the arguments of the respective

counsel and on perusal of the grounds urged in both the appeals

and the materials available on record, the points that would arise

for consideration of this Court are:

(1) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the just and reasonable compensation?

(2) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in granting exorbitant compensation as claimed by the Insurance Company?

(3) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding the interest at 9% p.a. as contended by the Insurance Company?

(4) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding interest at 12% p.a. as contended by the claimant?

(5) What Order?

Point Nos.(1) & (2):

10. Having heard the arguments of respective counsel

and also the material available on record, it is not in dispute with

regard to the accident and the only dispute is with regard to the

quantum of compensation. The respective counsel also not

dispute the nature of injuries and fractures suffered by the

claimant. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,53,000/-

taking the income of Rs.8,000/- under the head of 'loss of future

earnings'. The only dispute is with regard to taking of the

income. In view of the accident of the year 2015 and in the

absence of documentary proof, the Tribunal ought to have taken

the notional income. In the year 2015, the notional income

would be Rs.9,000/-. Hence, the Tribunal has committed an

error in taking the income as Rs.8,000/-. The Tribunal

committed an error in taking the disability of 23% as against the

evidence of the Doctor, who deposed 26% and the whole body

disability of 26% has to be considered. Having considered the

said disability and taking the income of Rs.9,000/- per month, it

comes to Rs.4,49,280/- (9000x12x16x26/100) under the head

of 'loss of future earnings' as against Rs.3,53,000/- awarded by

the Tribunal.

11. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.70,000/-

under the head of 'pain and suffering' and the same does not

require any interference of this Court.

12. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/-

under the head of 'loss of amenities'. The claimant has to lead

rest of his life with the disability of 26%. Hence, the same has

to be enhanced to Rs.40,000/- as against Rs.30,000/- awarded

by the Tribunal.

13. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of

Rs.5,83,000/- under the head of 'Medical Expenses' considering

all the medical bills. Hence, it does not require any interference

of this Court.

14. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.44,000/-

under the head of 'loss of income during the laid up period and

rest period'. It has to be noted that he has suffered the

disability in respect of both the limbs and sustained the

fractures. When such being the case, it requires minimum six

months to re-unite the fractures and having taken note of the

same it comes to Rs.54,000/- (9000x6) under the head of 'loss

of income during the laid up period and rest period'.

15. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/-

under the head of 'attendant, nourishment and conveyance

charges'. He was an inpatient for a period of 20 days. Hence,

the same is just and reasonable and does not require any

interference of this Court.

16. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/-

under the head of 'future medical expenses'. The learned counsel

for the appellant submits that the Doctor/P.W.2 has deposed

that the petitioner needs surgery for removal of implants from

his left and right femur, which may costs of Rs.1,20,000/-. The

evidence is clear that the fractures are united and it only

requires removal of implants in respect of both the lower limbs.

Having taken note of the same Rs.30,000/- to each fracture to

be awarded. Then, it comes to Rs.60,000/- as against

Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

Point Nos.(3) & (4):

17. The Tribunal awarded the interest at the rate of 9%

p.a. It has to be noted that the award was passed in the year

2016 and the accident was taken place in the year 2015 and the

Court has to take note of the fact that the rate of interest

existing at present in the Nationalised Bank. Hence, it is

appropriate to modify the same to 6% p.a. as against 9% p.a.

and it is not appropriate to award at the rate of 12% p.a. as

contended by the claimant. Hence, I answered point Nos.(3) to

(4) are 'partly affirmative'.

18. In the circumstances, the appellant/claimant is

entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.12,76,280/- as

against Rs.11,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at

the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date

of deposit.

19. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeals are allowed in part.

(ii) The Judgment and Award passed in M.V.C.No.4046/2015 dated 18.08.2016 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT., Bengaluru (SCCH-18) is modified granting compensation of Rs.12,76,280/- as against Rs.11,40,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit.