Karnataka High Court
Smt Sarojamma vs M/S Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd on 13 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45311
MFA No. 3834 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3834 OF 2016(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SAROJAMMA
W/O. LATE ANJANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.3/143, CHINNA THOGARI, WARD-3,
ANNIYALM, ANNIYALAM POST, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.30, 3RD CROSS, J.C.
NAGAR, GELEYARA BALAGA, BANGALORE-96.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H. B. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BY ITS MANAGER,
KSCMF BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, NO.8, 3RD BLOCK,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
Digitally signed
by VINUTHA B S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
2. SRI. ALLA BAKASH,
KARNATAKA
S/O LATE SYED BASHEER,
R/AT NO.136, 13TH CROSS,
11TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, RAJENDRA NAGAR,
KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-47.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1(VC);
V/O DATED 01/02/2021 NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.09.2015 PASSED IN
MVC NO.4249/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45311
MFA No. 3834 of 2016
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.H.B.Somapur, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Sri.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for
respondent No.1. Issuance of notice to respondent No.2
was dispensed with.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that was
rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru in MVC No.4249/2014 dated 26.09.2015. The
appellant is the claimant. The appellant sought for
enhancement of compensation. In the grounds of appeal,
the appellant took two major grounds firstly attributing
contributory negligence at the rate of 10% on her part is
unjustifiable. Secondly, that the sum awarded as
compensation is grossly low.
NC: 2023:KHC:45311
3. Making his submission with regard to the first
aspect i.e., contributory negligence on the part of the
appellant, learned counsel for the appellant states that
without there being any material that is available on
record, contributory negligence was attributed to the
appellant. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.1 submits that the appellant was under
the influence of alcohol when the accident occurred and
under such influence, she was crossing the road and
thereby the accident occurred and therefore, the Tribunal
has rightly gave its finding with regard to the contributory
negligence on part of the appellant.
4. The version of the appellant as per her claim
application is that on 14.09.2014, at about 4.40 p.m. while
she was standing by the left side of old Madras road
infront of Isolation hospital, Indiranagar, with a intention
to cross the road, the rider of the TVS XL Super bearing
registration No.KA-01-EF-0520 came in a rash and
negligent manner with a high speed and dashed against
NC: 2023:KHC:45311
her due to which she sustained injuries. To establish the
nature of injuries sustained, the appellant produced Ex.P6
- wound certificate. In Ex.P6 - wound certificate there is a
mention that the appellant was found under the influence
of alcohol consumption. When the appellant herself has
produced Ex.P6 - wound certificate with a submission that
the contents therein are genuine, she cannot again state
that the observations made are false. She relied upon the
said document stating that the injuries mentioned therein
were sustained by her and that the contents of the
documents are true. Admittedly, one cannot approbate
and reprobate. When the impugned order is gone through,
this Court finds that the Tribunal analyzing each and every
aspect of the case has come to a just finding that the
contributory negligence to be attributed on part of the
appellant is 10%. Therefore, this Court is of the view that
the observations made in that regard needs no
interference.
NC: 2023:KHC:45311
5. Coming to the aspect of quantum that is
awarded as compensation, the Tribunal has awarded a
sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head pain and sufferings,
Rs.20,000/- as loss of income during laid up period,
Rs.20,000/- towards attendant charge, diet, conveyance
and other charges, Rs.10,000/- towards medical
expenditure, Rs.10,000/- towards future medical
expenditure, Rs.40,320/- towards loss of future earning
capacity, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities and
comfort and Rs.25,000/- for permanent disability. In total
the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,90,320/- as
compensation. As per the contents of Ex.P6 and the
evidence of PW.2, the appellant sustained 2 simple injuries
and 1 grievous injury. Having considered each and every
aspect including the aspect of disability, the Tribunal has
arrived at such a calculation. The age of the appellant as
mentioned in Ex.P6 is 65 years. The appellant herself in
her claim petition which was filed in the year 2014
mentioned her years as 54 years. However, for the
reasons best known, Pw-2 who gave evidence in the same
NC: 2023:KHC:45311
year stated her age to be 50 years. Keeping aside these
discrepancies, the Tribunal has taken a justifiable amount
as income of the appellant by the date of accident and
awarded reasonable sum under all heads. This Court does
not find any infirmity in the impugned order so as to
interfere with. Therefore, holding that there are no
grounds to interfere with, the appeal is dismissed without
costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NS
CT:TSM
