Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Mr. D. Srinu on 21 September, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
MFA No. 23939 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23939 OF 2011 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANZ INSURANCE CO. LTD
REGD OFFICE 21, PATOLLOS ROAD, CHENNAI.
REP. BY ZONAL MANAGER,
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S S JOSHI, ADV.)
AND:
1. MR. D. SRINU
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
OWNER OF TATA LPT LORRY BEARING
NO AP-11/V-8426, R/O H. NO. 3-6-2, L.B. NAGAR,
SAROOR NAGAR, R.C. DISTRICT, HYDERABAD
Digitally signed
2. SMT. KAMALABAI W/O BASAVANNEPPA BHORAJI,
by J MAMATHA AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
J Location:
R/O AT SHIVA APARTMENT, HOSUR ROAD,
Dharwad
MAMATHA Date:
2022.09.27 HUBLI, NOW AT KAMALAPUR ROAD, DHARWAD
12:32:25 +0530
3. SUNITA D/O BASAVANEPPA BHORAJI
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O AT SHIVA APARTMENT, HOSUR ROAD, HUBLI,
NOW AT KAMALAPUR ROAD, DHARWAD
4. SMT. SRIDEVI W/O BASAVARAJ WADATTI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O KESHWAPUR, HUBLI.
NOW AT KAMALAPUR ROAD, DHARWAD
-2-
MFA No. 23939 of 2011
5. SMT. SUMANGALA W/O SHRIKANT RANEBENNUR
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O OLD HUBLI, HUBLI.
NOW AT KAMALAPUR ROAD, DHARWAD
6. SMT. VIJAYLAKSHMI W/O MAHADEV AJJANAGI,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
R/O HINDALGA, BELGAUM
NOW AT KAMALAPUR ROAD, DHARWAD
7. SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O SATISH PATTAN
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O HOSUR, BANGALORE.
NOW AT KAMALAPUR ROAD, DHARWAD
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANAMANT R LATUR, ADV. FOR R2-R7,
R1 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:04-05-2011 PASSED IN
MVC.NO.996/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, CUM MEMBER, MACT, DHARWAD,
AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.5,10,000/-WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
MFA No. 23939 of 2011
2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and award
dated 04.05.2011 passed by the Prl. District and Sessions
Judge Cum MACT, Dharwad, in M.V.C.No.996/2010 challenging
the quantum of compensation.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company would contend that the Tribunal erred in not holding
that the death of the deceased Basavanneppa is due to his old
age and for other ailments but not due to the alleged accident
and ought to have dismissed the petition. The other contention
is that the Tribunal has grossly erred in concluding that the
claimants are entitled for compensation under medical
expenses, even though the claimants had been reimbursed
Rs.1 lakh under Mediclaim policy for the amount spent in the
hospital and that they cannot make double claim and hence,
the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal requires to
be interfered with.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents/claimants would submit that in order to
substantiate that the deceased was getting pension of
Rs.9,514/-, Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 i.e., letter issued by Vijaya Bank
and pension book of the deceased are produced before the
MFA No. 23939 of 2011
Tribunal and hence, the Tribunal has assessed the
compensation on the basis of the same. So far as the
contention with regard to medical expenses claimed by the
claimants under Medi claim policy is concerned, he submits that
it is based on a contract between the deceased and the
Insurance Company and hence, the Insurance Company cannot
claim that the medical expenses are already reimbursed under
the Mediclaim policy. He would also submit that the
compensation awarded under other heads i.e., conveyance and
other miscellaneous expenses, funeral expenses and love and
affection is only Rs.30,000/- but it ought to have been
Rs.40,000/- each which comes to Rs.2,40,000/- and in the
absence of any appeal, this Court can grant the said amount.
Hence, he submits that the judgment and award needs to be
interfered with to the above extent.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and also on perusal of the material available on record,
it is seen that no doubt the Tribunal has considered the pension
document which are marked Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7. The main
contention of the Insurance Company that the Manager has not
been examined to prove the Ex.P.6 is concerned, when the
MFA No. 23939 of 2011
same is issued by Vijaya Bank stating that the deceased was
getting the pension and was credited to the bank account,
question of proving the said fact does not arise. No doubt, the
Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards
medical expenses even though the claimants have got the
same reimbursed under a Mediclaim policy. But, it is seen that
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conveyance
and other miscellaneous expenses, funeral expenses and love
and affection is only an amount of Rs.30,000/- which ought to
have been Rs.33,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.2,40,000/- towards loss of love and affection. In the
absence of any appeal filed by the claimants, the same cannot
be considered in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal to reduce the
quantum of compensation as contended by the Insurance
Company.
6. In view of the above discussions, I pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
MFA No. 23939 of 2011
ii) The amount deposited by the Insurance Company is
ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith
and directed to pay the amount within six weeks.
iii) The registry is directed to send back the TCR
forthwith.
(Sd/-)
JUDGE
JM
