The Divisional Manager, Liberty ... vs Sri. Hanumanth S/O.Mailappa ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1639 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

       MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.100940/2021 (MV)
                            C/W.
       MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.100943/2021 (MV)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE LTD.,
EARSTWHILE LIBERTY VIDEOCON
GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
V A KALABURGI SQUARE,
1ST FLOOR, DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGAR,
HUBBALLI. NOW REPRESENTED BY
ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
                                               ...APPELLANT
                                                  (COMMON)

(BY MS. ANUSHA SANGAMI FOR SRI S. K. KAYAKMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SRI. SANTOSH
       S/O BEEMAPPA KODIHALLI
       AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. OWNER CUM DRIVER,
       R/O. KURUBARAGERI, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
       DIST. HAVERI.

2.     RI. MAHANTAYYA S/O SIDDALINGAYYA MATHAD
       AGE:MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF JCB
       BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA-27/N-1536
       R/O. CHALAGERI, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
       DIST. HAVERI.
                                            ... RESPONDENTS
                                   (IN MFA NO.100940/2021)
                                     2




1.   SRI. HANUMANTH S/O.MAILAPPA KICHADI
     AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC: CLEANER
     R/O. KURUBARAGERI,
     TQ.RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI

2.   SRI.MAHANTAYYA
     S/O. SIDDALINGAYYA MATHAD
     AGE. MAJOR, OCC. OWNER OF
     JCB BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA-27/N-1536
     R/O. CHALAGERI, TQ. RANEBENNUR
     DIST. HAVERI 581 115.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS
                                 (IN MFA NO.100943/2021)

(BY SRI.T. R. PATIL AND SRI. S. M. JAVALI, ADVOCATES FOR R1;
   R2 - SERVED)
                                 ---

MFA NO.100940/2021 IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.12.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.828/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF `4,73,852/- WITH INTEREST AT 7% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF CLAIM PETITION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT

MFA NO.100943/2021 IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.12.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.830/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF `3,84,231/- WITH INTEREST AT 7% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON JUDGMENT

These two appeals are preferred by the Insurer

of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.KA-

27/N-1536 challenging the quantum of compensation

awarded by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and AMACT,

Ranebennur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal',

for brevity), in MVC Nos.828/2017 and 830/2017 and

therefore, both the appeals are heard together and

disposed of by a common judgment.

2. Though these appeals are listed for

admission, with the consent of learned advocates

appearing on both sides, the same are taken up for

final disposal.

3. The parties to these appeals are referred to

by their rankings assigned to them before the

Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

4. The brief facts of the case as revealed from

the records are:

On 24.03.2017, the claimants before the

Tribunal were traveling in a Xenon pick-up vehicle

bearing registration No.KA-27/B-5718 on Harihar-

Ranebennur road. When the said vehicle reached

near Chalageri Divider road, the offending JCB

bearing registration No.KA-27/N-1536, which was

driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner,

dashed against the pick up vehicle in which the

claimants were traveling and as a result, the accident

had occurred and claimants were injured in the said

accident. Immediately thereafter, the claimants were

shifted to a Government Hospital and thereafter to a

Private Hospital, wherein they were admitted as

inpatients and treated for their injuries. It is in this

background, they had filed claim petitions under

Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, claiming

compensation from the owner and Insurer of the

offending vehicle and the said claim petitions were

partly allowed by the Tribunal awarding a

compensation of `4,73,852/- and `3,84,231/- to the

claimants in MVC No.828/201 and 830/2017

respectively, with interest at 7% p.a. from the date

of petition till the date of payment. Being aggrieved

by the quantum of compensation awarded, the

Insurer of the offending vehicle has preferred these

two appeals.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurer

submits that the disability to the whole body

assessed by the Tribunal compared to the disability

to the particular limb assessed by the doctor - PW3

is on the higher side. She submits that the

compensation awarded on other heads is also on the

higher side, which requires to be reduced. She also

submits that the rate of interest awarded by the

Tribunal is on the higher side. Accordingly, she

prays to allow the appeals.

6. I have carefully considered the rival

arguments addressed on behalf of the Insurer and

also perused the material on record.

7. The only question that arises for

consideration in these appeals is the correctness of

quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants

by the Tribunal. The accident is of the year 2017 and

therefore, the notional income of the claimants has

been rightly taken into consideration at `10,250/-,

which is in compliance of the income chart

maintained by the Karnataka State Legal Service

Authority for the purpose of disposal of the motor

vehicle accident cases before the Lok Adalath. Even

the multiplier applied having regard to the age of the

claimants is correct.

8. In respect of the claimant in MVC

No.828/2017 is concerned, the doctor had assessed

the disability of the claimant at 35% to the right

upper limb. However, the Tribunal had considered

the whole body disability at 20% for awarding

compensation. The material on record would go to

show that the claimant had suffered fracture of 2 n d ,

4 t h and 5 t h ribs on right side and fracture of right

scapula. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was

not justified in taking into consideration the whole

body disability at 20% and in my considered view,

the whole body disability ought to have been taken

into consideration at 12%. The proper multiplier

applicable is 17. In the said event, the claimant

would be entitled for a compensation of ` 2,50,920/-

(`10,250 x 12 x 17 x 12%) as against the amount of

`4,18,200/- awarded towards 'loss of future income

due to disability'. Towards 'pain and suffering',

having regard to the number of fractures, the

claimant is entitled for a compensation of ` 40,000/-

as against `25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The

compensation awarded towards 'medical expenses'

remains unaltered. Towards 'incidental expenses',

the claimant is entitled for a sum of ` 7,500/- as

against `1,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. Towards

'loss of income during laid up period', the claimant is

entitled for a sum of ` 20,500/- as against `10,250/-

awarded by the Tribunal. Towards 'loss of amenities

in future life', the claimant is entitled for a

compensation of ` 30,000/-. Therefore, in all the

claimant is entitled for a sum of ` 3,67,822/- as

against `4,73,852/- awarded by the Tribunal.

9. In respect of the claimant in MVC

No.830/2017 is concerned, he had suffered fracture

of left clavicle and left scapula in the accident in

question. The doctor had assessed the disability of

the claimant at 30.6% to the left upper limb and the

Tribunal had considered the whole body disability at

15%. In my considered view, having regard to the

nature of injuries, the whole body disability ought to

have been considered at 10% by the Tribunal. The

proper multiplier applicable would be 18. In the said

event, towards 'loss of future income due to

disability', the claimant would be entitled for a

compensation of ` 2,21,400/- (`10,250x12x18x10%)

as against a sum of `3,32,100/- awarded by the

Tribunal. Towards 'pain and suffering', having regard

to the number of fractures, the claimant is entitled

for a compensation of ` 40,000/-, as against

`25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The

compensation awarded towards 'medical expenses'

remains unaltered. Towards 'incidental expenses' the

claimant is entitled for a sum of ` 7,500/- as against

`1,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. Towards 'loss of

income during laid up period', the claimant is entitled

for a sum of ` 20,500/- as against `10,250/-

awarded by the Tribunal. Towards 'loss of amenities

in future life', the claimant is entitled for a

compensation of ` 30,000/-. Therefore, in all the

claimant is entitled for a sum of ` 3,34,781/- as

against a sum of `3,84,231/- awarded by the

Tribunal.

10. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

The appeals filed by the Insurer are allowed in

part.

The claimant in MVC No.828/2017 is entitled for

a compensation of `3,67,822/- as against `4,73,852/-

awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant in MVC

No.830/2017 is entitled for a compensation of

`3,34,781/- as against `3,84,231/- awarded by the

Tribunal.

The compensation awarded shall carry interest

at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

The amount in deposit in these two appeals shall

be transferred to the Tribunal for the purpose of

disbursement and the Insurer is directed to deposit

the balance amount of compensation with interest,

within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt

of certified copy of this order.

The order passed by the Tribunal insofar as it

relates to deposit and disbursement, etc., remains

unaltered.

Sd/-

JUDGE

gab