Karnataka High Court
The General Manager, vs Kareem Sab S/O Pakkirasab ... on 23 September, 2021
Author: V.Srishananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
M.F.A. NO.21885/2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE GENERAL MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED,
CTS #472-274, VA KALBURGI SQUARE, DESAI CROSS,
DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI, REPTD.,BY ITS DEPUTY
MANAGER, LEGAL DEPARTMENT,CTS #472-274, VA KALBURGI
SQUARE, DESAICROSS, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G N RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. KAREEM SAB S/O PAKKIRASAB DODDAMANI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: GRASIM DIVN WORKER
(HPF COMPANY),R/O: CHALAGERI,
TQ: RANEBENNUR,DIST: HAVERI.
2. SRI. HAJAREESH S/O LATE IMAMSAB YELLUR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF GOODS LORRY,
NO. KA-31/4903,R/O: KILLI ONI, MUNDAGOD,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANJANEYA M., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED )
-2-
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1)OF MV ACT, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:22.08.2011 PASSED IN
MVC.NO.382/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MEMBER AMACT, RANEBENNUR, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.17,96,934/- ALONG WITH INTEREST
AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION, TILL
ITS REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging the
validity of the judgment and award dated 22.08.2011 passed
in MVC No.382/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and
AMACT, Ranebennur.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of
the appeal are as under:
A claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as 'MV
Act' for short] contending that on 23.11.2008 at about 5.30
p.m., when the claimant being the rider of the motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-17/L-5231 was proceeding from
Ranebeennur to his village Chalageri, a goods lorry bearing
Registration No.KA-31/4903 came from opposite direction in a
rash and negligent manner, dashed against the left side of the
motorcycle and made him to fall on the ground and then right
wheel was ran over on the left leg of the claimant and made
him to become unconscious on the spot. Thereafter, he was
shifted to Government Hospital, Ranebennur and then to SS
Hospital Davangere, wherein he had to spend huge sum of
money for treatment and thus laid a claim for awarding
suitable compensation.
3. The Claim Petition was resisted by filing necessary
written statement. The Tribunal after raising appropriate
issues, considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record, allowed the Claim Petition in a sum of Rs.17,96,934/-
with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition
till realization. Being aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation, the Insurance Company is in appeal.
4. Sri G.N. Raichur, learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company vehemently contended that
having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the
claimant, awarding of compensation in a sum of
Rs.17,96,934/- is on the higher side and therefore, sought for
reduction of the compensation.
5. He further contended that even though the injuries
sustained by the claimant is of grievous injury in nature, the
Tribunal ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs.12,51,895/-
under the head of loss of future income on account of
disability. The claimant has produced the salary certificate
showing that he was having a salary in a sum of Rs.14,658/-
per month. Out of which, transport allowance of Rs.338/-,
Uniform allowance of Rs.225, Production bonus of Rs.2,329/-
are the amounts should not have been taken into
consideration for computing the quantum of compensation by
the Tribunal, and thus prayed for allowing the appeal by
reducing the compensation.
6. He also contended that the Tribunal has
committed a grave error in granting a sum of Rs.2,00,039/-
towards loss of income during laid up period, which is against
to the settled principles of law and therefore, sought for
allowing the appeal. He also contended that the Tribunal
committed an error in taking 100% disability as against the
medical evidence on record which is estimated at 50%.
Therefore, sought for allowing the appeal.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant
supported the impugned judgment and award and prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
8. In view of the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsel for the parties, the sole point that would arise
for consideration is -
"Whether the appellant-Insurance Company
has made out a case for reduction of the quantum
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal?"
9. In the case on hand, the claimant sustaining
accidental injuries while proceeding on a motorcycle bearing
No.KA-17/L-5231 from Ranebennur to his Village Chalageri,
on account of the rash and negligent driving of the goods
Lorry bearing No.KA-31/4903 which came from the opposite
direction dashed against the claimant, stands established by
placing oral and documentary evidence on record.
10. The medical records amply establish the nature of
injuries sustained and disability is assessed by the doctor to
the extent of 50%. However, the Tribunal considered 100%
disability. But the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant
do not indicate that he has sustained 100% disability. So
also, the Tribunal has committed a error in considering the
transport allowance and other allowances as the salary.
Therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company has made out a
case for re-assessment of the compensation, which is re-
assessed as under:
Rs.
Towards pain and agony 1,00,000/-
Towards loss of amenities 75,000/-
Towards attendant charges 20,000/-
Towards Medical expenses 75,000/-
Towards future medical expenses 50,000/-
Towards loss of future income 9,31,867/-
[11,766 x 12 x 11 x 60%/100]
Total: 12,51,867/-
Accordingly, the point is answered in the
affirmative and pass the following -
ORDER
1. The appeal is allowed in part.
2. In modification of the award passed by the
Tribunal, the claimant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.12,51,867/- with 6% interest p.a., from the
date of petition till its realization.
3. Amount in deposit if any, is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith and the
balance amount is to be deposited by the
insurance company within four weeks from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
4. Office to draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PL*
CT:TM
