The Manager vs K S Deepak
2022 Latest Caselaw 11759 Kant

                                             -1-
                                                     MFA No. 4695 of 2012




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                                         BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
                    MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4695 OF 2012 (MV-I)
               BETWEEN:

                      THE MANAGER
                      CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                      S.R.COMPLEX, BENDORWELL,
                      MANGALORE

                      BY
                      THE MANAGER (CLAIMS)
                      DIVISIONALOFFICE,
                      NO.135/5, 15TH CROSS ROAD,
                      2ND FLOOR, J.P.NAGAR, 3RD PHASE,
                      BANGALORE- 560 078
                      BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER -CLAIMS

                                                             ...APPELLANT
               (BY SRI. O MAHESH.,ADVOCATE)

               AND:
Digitally
signed by      1.     K.S.DEEPAK
PANKAJA S             AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
Location:             S/O SANJEEVA POOJARY,
High Court
of Karnataka          ANEMAHAL VILLAGE,
                      SAKALESHPUR TALUK- 573 134

               2.     KUMAR
                      MAJOR
                      S/O RANGEGOWDA
                      MELENAHALLI VILLAGE,
                             -2-
                                      MFA No. 4695 of 2012




     DYAVALAPURA POST, DUDDA HOBLI,
     HASSAN TALUK -573 201
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.D.SANDHYA FOR
     SMT.A.R.SHARADAMBA, ADVOCATE FOR R1
     V/O/D 02.08.2012, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

     MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT      AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 8.2.2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.10/2011 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC,
SAKLESHPUR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.5,42,091/-
WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALISATION AND ETC.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                        JUDGMENT

1. The Insurer is in appeal challenging the award of

Rs.5,42,091/- granted to the claimant for the injuries

suffered by him in the accident.

2. It is the case of the Insurer that admittedly the

claimant was a pillion rider and having regard to the fact

that no injuries were caused to the rider of the motorcycle

coupled with the IMV report, it was clear that the accident

occurred as a result of the negligence on the part of the

MFA No. 4695 of 2012

rider of the motorcycle and this has not at all been taken

into consideration by the Tribunal.

3. It is also contended that the compensation awarded

is excessive and the assessment of disability at 55% by

the Tribunal is also improper.

4. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent, who was

stated to be the driver of the lorry, with which the

motorcycle collided, was not examined. It is also not in

dispute that the driver of the said lorry was charge

sheeted by the police.

5. The IMV report, upon which reliance is placed by

O.Mahesh, learned counsel for the Insurer, indicates that

there was damage to the right side front indicator of the

motorcycle and also there were minor scratches to the

head light assembly. In my view, from these damages, all

that can be inferred is that there was an impact between

the lorry and the motorcycle and it cannot be gathered

MFA No. 4695 of 2012

from these damages that the rider of the motorcycle was

in any way responsible for the accident.

6. It is quite probable that the lorry came to the left

and had a impact with the motorcycle and this had

resulted in injuries to the claimant. Merely because no

injuries were caused to the rider of the motorcycle that

would not lead to an automatic inference that the accident

was doubtful or that the accident occurred due to the

negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. Therefore, the

finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the lorry was

responsible cannot be found fault with.

7. As regards the compensation awarded, it is noticed

that the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 55% and

has determined the monthly income of the injured at

Rs.3,750/-. Even if the argument of the Insurer is

accepted that the assessment of disability is on the higher

side, having regard to the fact that in respect of an

accident of the year 2009, the notional income has been

MFA No. 4695 of 2012

determined at Rs.5,000/- by the Karnataka State Legal

Services Authority, the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal in the totality of the circumstances is just and

proper. I, therefore, find no reason to entertain this appeal

and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

PKS CT:AN