Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager Legal vs Sri. Somkashekhar on 23 February, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
1 M.F.A.100886/2020
IN THE HIGH COU RT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD B ENCH
DATED THIS THE 23 R D DAY OF FEB RUARY, 2022
B EFORE
THE HON'B LE MR.JU STICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETT Y
M.F .A . No.100886/2020 (MV)
BET WEEN
THE DIV IS IONAL MANAGER LEGAL,
ICICI LOMB ARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMIT ED,
R/O: B ANNIGIDAD BU S STOP,
BELLAD AND COMPANY,
2ND FLOOR, GOKU L ROAD,
HU BB ALLI-580030,
NOW REPRES ENTED BY ITS
AU THORIZ ED SIGNATU RE.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . SRI. SOMKASHEKH AR
S/O. MAHADEVAPP A KADAKOL,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O. MU NAVALLI VIL LAGE,
TAL: SAU NDAT TI,
DIST: B ELAGAVI- 591126.
2 . SRI. MALANAGOUDA
S/O. MALLIKARJU NA GOUDA PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: SIDNAL V ILLAGE,
TAL: RAMADU RG,
DIST: B ELAGAVI- 591123.
...RESP ONDENTS
(BY SRI.GU RURAJ R TU RAMARI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA L IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEH ICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE JU DGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.11.2019
2 M.F.A.100886/2020
PASSED IN MVC No.714/20 17 ON THE FIL E OF THE
PR INCIPA L SENIO R CIVIL JU DGE AND ADDIT IONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS T RIB UNAL, SAUNDATTI, AWARDING
THE COMPENSATION OF ` 14,16,00 0/- WIT H INTER EST AT
THE RATE OF 9% P.A, FROM THE DATE OF PETIT ION T ILL
ITS REAL ISAT ION.
THIS APPEA L COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, TH IS DAY
THE COU RT DELIVERED THE FOLL OWING:
J U D G M E N T
The insurer of the offend ing vehicle bearing
registration No.KA-05/AB-2246 has preferred this
app eal challenging the judgment and award dated 14 t h
November 2019 passed by the Addl.M.A.C.T.,
Saundatti, in M.V.C.No.714/2017, questioning the
quantum of compensation and also the liability.
2. Though this appeal is listed for admission,
with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for
the p arties, it is taken up for final disposal.
3. The parties to this appeal are referred to by
their rankings before the Tribunal for the sake of
convenience.
4. The undisputed facts of the case are that
on 19/06/2015 at about 8.00 p.m. when the claimant
3 M.F.A.100886/2020
was proceeding in his motor cycle from Yakkeri
towards Munavalli on Munavalli - Naragund road, the
offending Tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-
05/AB-2246 driven in a rash and negligent manner by
its driver dashed against the motor cycle of the
claimant and caused the accident. In the said
accident, the claimant was grievously injured and he
was shifted to a private hospital at Gokak wherein he
was treated as an inpatient for nearly about five
months. It is under these circumstances, a claim
petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of `1 crore
with interest from the owner and insurer of the
offending vehicle bearing registration No.KA-05/AB-
2246.
5. The Tribunal had partly allowed the claim
petition and awarded a compensation of `14,16,000/-
with interest @ 9% from the date of petition till
realization.
4 M.F.A.100886/2020
6. Learned counsel for the insurer of the
offending vehicle submits that the accident had taken
place on 19.06.2015 and the complaint has been
lodged only on 20.06.2015 and there is a delay in
lodging the FIR. He submits that the offending
vehicle has been falsely implicated in the case and
therefore, there has been a delay caused in reporting
the accident to the Police. He submits that therefore
the Tribunal was not justified in saddling the liability
to pay compensation on the insurer of the offending
vehicle. He has also questioned the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal and submits
that the compensation awarded on all heads is on the
higher side.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
the claimant submits that the claimant had suffered
five major fractures and the Doctor has assessed his
disability at 70% to the whole body whereas the
Tribunal has taken it only at 50% and therefore,
there is no excess compensation awarded as
5 M.F.A.100886/2020
contended by the learned counsel for the insurer. He
submits that the compensation awarded is just and
proper and needs no interference. Accordingly prays
to dismiss the appeal.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to
the arguments addressed on both sides and also
perused the material available on record.
9. The accident in question had taken place on
19.06.2015 at about 8.00 p.m. and the involvement
of the offending lorry bearing registration No.KA-
05/AB-2246 is disputed by the insurer of the lorry
only on the ground that there is a delay in lodging
the complaint. The material on record would go to
show that an FIR has been registered on 20.06.2015
by the jurisdictional Police after the statement of the
injured was recorded in the hospital. Therefore, it is
very clear that immediately after receiving the MLC
report from the hospital, the jurisdictional Police
have gone to the hospital and recorded the statement
of the claimant, who was grievously injured in the
6 M.F.A.100886/2020
accident in question. In his statement, the claimant
had given the particulars of the offending vehicle
including the registration number and therefore, it
cannot be said that the offending vehicle has been
falsely implicated in the accident in question.
Therefore, I find no merit in the contention urged by
the learned counsel for the insurer about the false
implication of the offending vehicle in the accident in
question.
10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation
awarded to the claimant is concerned, the claimant
had suffered multiple fracture injuries all over his
body in the accident in question. The medical
records would go to show that the claimant had
suffered fracture of right ulna with comminuted
fracture of radius, fracture of right femur, fracture of
right side ribs and also comminuted fracture of left
wrist and fracture of tibia and fibula of right leg.
Therefore, in all the claimant had suffered four major
fractures and also fracture of ribs in addition to other
7 M.F.A.100886/2020
simple injuries caused to him. The claimant was
aged about 26 years as on the date of accident and
he is said to be an agricultural coolie. The
doctor/PW-2, who has issued the disability
certificate, had deposed before the Tribunal with
regard to the injury suffered and the treatment
undergone for the same by the claimant. According
to PW-2, the claimant had suffered 40% physical
disability on his right upper limb and 40% disability
on his right lower limb. In addition to that, he has
also suffered 15% disability on his left upper limb.
Therefore, if the overall disabilities to the particular
limbs are taken into consideration, then the whole
body disability that the claimant would have suffered
has to be taken at 32%. The proper multiplier
applicable would be '17'. The Tribunal has rightly
taken into consideration the income of the deceased
at `8,000/- per month. In the said event, the
claimant would be entitled for a sum of `5,22,240/-
towards loss of future earning due to physical
disability. The Tribunal has not awarded any
8 M.F.A.100886/2020
compensation to the claimant towards loss of income
during laid-up period. The material on record would
go to show that the claimant was treated as an
inpatient in the hospital for nearly about five months.
Therefore, the claimant would be entitled for loss of
income during laid-up period for a period of at least
eight months. The income of the claimant has been
taken at `8,000/-. Therefore, towards loss of income
during laid-up period, the claimant is entitled for a
sum of `64,000/-. The compensation awarded to the
claimant on all other heads is just and proper and
needs no interference. Under the circumstances, the
claimant is entitled for a total compensation of
`11,86,240/-.
11. Though the learned counsel for the
appellant/insurer has contended that the rate of
interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher
side, having regard to the nature of injuries suffered
by the claimant and also the percentage of disability
suffered by him to the whole body, I am of the
9 M.F.A.100886/2020
considered view that the rate of interest awarded by
the Tribunal at 9% per annum is required to be
maintained.
The insurer of the offending vehicle is directed
to deposit the balance amount of compensation with
interest @ 9% per annum before the Tribunal within
a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
The amount in deposit is directed to be
transferred to the Tribunal for the purpose of
disbursement.
The order passed by the Tribunal insofar as it
relates to disbursement and deposit, etc., remains
unaltered.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
SD/-
JUDGE
KNM/-
