Karnataka High Court
Mr Vijay Praveen Cutinha vs Prashanth on 14 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
MFA No. 188 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 637 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14 TH
DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 188 OF 2017 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 637 OF 2018 (MV-I)
IN M.F.A. NO. 188 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MOTOR ROYAL INSURANCE BUILDING,
2ND FLOOR, 14-5, TATA ROAD, MUMBAI.
NOW REP. BY REGIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, SUBHARAM COMPLEX,
NO.144, M.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
Digitally signed ...APPELLANT
by T S (BY SRI A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
NAGARATHNA
Location: High
Court of AND:
Karnataka
1. VIJAY PRAVEEN CUTINHA,
S/O. RAYMOND CUTINHA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/O. PADIGUDDE, AMBLAMOGARU POST,
MANGALURU POST-575 001.
2. PRASHANTH
S/O. ANNU MADIVALA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/O. IRKI HOUSE,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
MFA No. 188 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 637 of 2018
RAMA KUNJA VILLAGE,
PUTTUR TALUK-574 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GURUPRASAD B.R. FOR R1;
R-2 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1723/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC, MANGALURU, D.K., AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF Rs.7,12,095/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN M.F.A.NO.637 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
MR. VIJAY PRAVEEN CUTINHA,
S/O. RAYMOND CUTINHA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/O. PADIGUDDE,
AMBLAMOGARU POST,
MANGALURU-575 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GURUPRASAD B R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PRASHANTH,
S/O ANNU MADIVALA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O. IRKI HOUSE,
RAMA KUNJA VILLAGE,
PUTTUR TALUK-574 241.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
MOTOR ROYAL INSURANCE BUILDING,
2ND FLOOR, 14-5, TATA ROAD,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
MFA No. 188 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 637 of 2018
MUMBAI-400 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
R-1 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22/06/2016, PASSED IN
MVC.NO.1723/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., MANGALURU, D.K. PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING AT
KALABURAGI, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the judgment and the award
passed by the learned III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC Mangaluru, D.K. in MVC.No.1723/2012 dated
22.06.2016, the respondent No.2-National Insurance
Company Limited as well as the petitioner have
approached this Court in appeal.
2. The brief facts are as below:
That on 05.07.2012 at about 3.00 p.m., when the
petitioner was proceeding to the work site as per the
direction of the employer, from Falneer towards Adyaru in
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
Tata Magic Tempo bearing No.KA-21-N-2148, the said
tempo was driven by its driver in rash and negligent
manner and at Adyarukatte on NH-75 dashed to the hind
side of the bus bearing No.KA-19-D-4505. Due to the said
impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and
immediately shifted to Father Muller Hospital. The
Petitioner was admitted as inpatient in the hospital from
05.07.2012 to 01.08.2012. The petitioner was discharged
from the hospital with an advice to take bed rest and
follow up treatment. The petitioner had spent a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- for medical expenses and further requires
Rs.50,000/- for future medical expenses. The petitioner
was hale and healthy at the time of accident and aged
about 20 years. The petitioner was working as an
electrician under the respondent No.1 and earning a salary
of Rs.12,000/- p.m. The entire family depended on his
earning and due to fracture, now it is difficult to lift heavy
objects, to walk, bend, squat and stand for long time. The
accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent
driving of the tempo driver. The driver was in the course
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
of employment under respondent No.1 and also his agent.
The respondent No.2 being the insurer is liable to pay the
compensation.
3. After service of notice, respondent No.1 did not
appear before Tribunal and therefore, he was placed ex-
parte. However, respondent No.2-Insurance Company has
appeared through its counsel and filed written statement.
4. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company denied
that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the
part of the driver of the vehicle owned by respondent
No.1. It also denied the age, occupation and income of
the petitioner and that the compensation claimed as highly
exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law. It was
contended that the driver of the said vehicle bearing
No.KA-21-N-2148 was not having valid driving license at
the time of accident and there was violation of the
conditions of the policy and as such, the liability deserves
to be absolved. It is contended that the bus bearing
No.KA-19-D-4505 was guilty of violations of law and
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
therefore, the owner and insurer are also necessary
parties to the petition. It was contended that the liability
to pay compensation to the petitioner is not covered under
the policy and the respondent No.1 has not paid any
premium towards the coverage of the inmates of the
vehicle. It was contended that the policy does not cover
the wider liability and there was no contractual
relationship between the respondent No.1 and respondent
No.2-Insurance Company, with regard to the indemnifying
injuries suffered by inmates of the vehicle. Therefore,
respondent No.2-Insurance Company sought for dismissal
of the petition as against it.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the
Tribunal framed appropriate issues and after considering
the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and documentary
evidence of Exs.P1 to P9 and Ex.R1, held that the accident
had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the
vehicle, in which, the petitioner was traveling and also
held that the policy issued by respondent No.2-Insurance
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
Company covers the risk of the inmates of the vehicle and
therefore, fastened the liability on the respondent No.2-
Insurance Company. The Tribunal awarded compensation
under different heads as below:
Sl. Amount
Particulars
No. (in Rs.)
1. Pain and sufferings 50,000/-
2. Attendant, food and extra
8,100/-
nourishment
3. Medical expenses, loss of
6,41,995/-
amenities of life
4. Loss of income 12,000/-
Total 7,12,095/-
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and
award, the Insurance Company has approached this Court
in MFA No.188/2017 and the petitioner has approached
this Court in MFA No.637/2018.
7. On issuance of notice, the Insurance Company
and the petitioner have appeared before this Court, but
the owner of the vehicle did not appear in both the
appeals.
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
8. The learned counsel appearing for appellant-
Insurance Company in MFA No.188/2017 submits that
under the 'package policy', the employee is not covered. It
is submitted that Section 147 of M.V.Act, as it stood prior
to 01.04.2022, did not cover the risk of the employees,
particularly, the inmates of the vehicle. It is contended
that the inmates of the vehicle cannot be termed as 'third
parties', and therefore, unless an additional premium was
paid by the insured, the risk of the inmates of the vehicle
is not covered. It is contended that the policy was a
'package policy', but however, the additional premium was
not paid to cover the risk of the inmates of the vehicle.
Therefore, he contends that the Tribunal erred in holding
that the liability has to be fastened upon the Insurance
Company.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner contended that the Tribunal has not assessed
the compensation under the different heads in a proper
manner. He contended that the compensation awarded is
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
meager and a paltry sum has been assessed by the
Tribunal. He contends that the compensation under the
head of 'future loss of income' was not properly assessed
as the functional disability of the petitioner was not
considered with reference to his avocation. He submits
that the disability should have been held at 50% and an
adequate compensation should have been awarded. He
further contends that the policy issued by respondent
No.2-Insurance Company being a 'comprehensive package
policy', it covers the risk of the inmates of the vehicle. It is
submitted that the decision in the case of JAGTAR SINGH
ALIAS JAGDEV SINGH VS. SANJEEV KUMAR AND
OTHERS1 as well as the decision in the case of
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS.
BALAKRISHNAN AND ANOTHER2, categorically lay
down that the inmate of the car or pillion rider of the two
wheeler is covered when a package policy has been issued
by the Insurance Company. He also relied on the decision
(2018)15 SCC 189
AIR 2013 SC 473
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
of a Collateral Bench of this Court in the case of DADA
KHALANDER VS. MUNEER KHAN AND OTHERS3
rendered by Dharwad Bench of this Court.
10. In light of the submissions made above, the
points that arise for consideration are:
(i) Whether the policy issued by the appellant-
Insurance Company covers the risk of the
inmates of the vehicle?
(ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and proper?
Regarding Point No.1:
11. Petitioner contends that he was proceeding to
the site of work at the instruction of his employer and he
was working as an electrician. It is contended that another
employee by name Dhanush was also travelling with him.
It is contended that he was working under one Prashanth
and he was the owner of the vehicle i.e., the respondent
No.1. It is contended that the vehicle was covered under
MFA No.23416/2013, DD: 6-10-2017
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
the policy issued by respondent No.2 and it was a
'package policy'. Therefore, it is contended that inmates of
the vehicle are also covered as per the decision in the case
of BALAKRISHNAN (referred supra).
12. Per contra, the Insurance Company has raised a
contention that the additional premium in respect of
inmates of the vehicle was not paid and therefore, the risk
of the inmates of the vehicle is not covered under the
policy.
13. A perusal of the policy produced by the
Insurance Company at Ex.R1 shows that the policy was
issued in the name of Prashanth i.e., respondent No.1. It
is a 'private car package policy' as per the title mentioned
on it. The third party basic premium of Rs.740/- was
paid, but there was no premium paid in respect of
unnamed passenger. However, the owner was covered as
a sum of Rs.100/- was paid as an additional premium. A
total sum of Rs.6,364/- was paid as a total premium
amount. Therefore, there cannot be a doubt that it was a
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
'package policy' issued by the respondent No.2-Insurance
Company.
14. The question is, whether the policy at Ex.R1
covered the risk of the petitioner, who was traveling in the
said vehicle as an employee of the owner of the vehicle
i.e., Prashanth-respondent No.1?
15. It is relevant to note that the decision in the
case of BALAKRISHNAN (referred supra) at paragraph
No.18 reads as below:
"18. The High Court has also reproduced a circular issued by
IRDA dated 3.12.2009. It is instructive to quote the same:-
"IRDA
IRDA/NL/CIR/FandU/078/12/2009
03.12.2009.
To
All CEOs of all general insurance companies
(except ECGC, AIC, Staff Health, Apollo)
Re: Liability of insurance companies in respect of occupant of
a private car and pillion rider in a two wheeler under Standard
Motor Package Policy (also called Comprehensive Policy).
Pursuant to the Order of the Delhi High Court dated 23
11.2009 in MAC APP No. 176/2009 in the case of Yashpal
Luthra v. United India and Ors. the Authority convened a
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
meeting on November 26, 2009 of the CEOs of all the general
insurance companies doing motor insurance business in the
presence of the counsel appearing on behalf of the Authority
and the learned amicus curie.
Based on the unanimous decision taken in the meeting by the
representatives of the general insurance companies to comply
with the IRDA circular dated 16th November, 2009 restating
the position relating to the liability of all the general insurance
companies doing motor insurance business in respect of the
occupants in a private car and pillion rider on a two wheeler
under the comprehensive/package policies which was
communicated to the court on the same day i.e. November
26, 2009 and the court was pleased to pass the order (dt.
26.11.2009) received from the Court Master, Delhi High
Court, is enclosed for your ready reference and adherence. In
terms of the said order and the admitted liability of all the
general insurance companies doing motor insurance business
in respect of the occupants in a private car and pillion rider on
a two-wheeler under the comprehensive/package policies,
you are advised to confirm to the Authority, strict compliance
of the circular dated 16th November, 2009 and orders dt
26.11.2009 of the High Court. Such compliance on your part
would also involve:
(i) Withdrawing the plea against such a contest wherever
taken in the cases pending before the MACT, and issue
appropriate instructions to their respective lawyers and the
operating officers within 7 days;
(ii) with respect to all appeals pending before the High Courts
on this point, issuing instructions. within 7 days to the
respective operating officers and the counsel to withdraw the
contest on this ground which would require identification of
the number of appeals pending before the High Courts
(whether filed by the claimants or the insurers) on this issue
within a period of 2 weeks and the contest on this ground
being withdrawn within a period of four weeks thereafter;
(iii) With respect to the appeals pending before. the Hon'ble
Apex Court, informing, within a period of 7 days, their
respective advocates on record about the IRDA Circulars, for
appropriate advice and action. Your attention is also drawn to
the discussions in the CEOs meeting on 26.11.2009, when it
was reiterated that insurers must take immediate steps to
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
collect statistics about accident claims on the above subject
through a central point of reference decided by them as the
same has to be communicated in due course to the
Honourable High Court. You are therefore advised to take up
the exercise of collecting and collating the information within
a period of two months to ensure necessary and effective
compliance of the order of the Court. The information may be
centralized with the Secretariat of the General Insurance
Council and also furnished to us.
IRDA requires a written confirmation from you on the action
taken by you in this regard.
This has the approval of the Competent Authority.
Sd/-
(Prabodh Chander)
Executive Director."
16. In the said decision, the Apex Court had
considered the distinction between the 'Act Policy' and
'comprehensive Policy/package policy'. The Apex Court
also observed that in an earlier decision in the case of
BHAGYALAKSHMI AND OTHERS VS. UNITED
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER4, the
matter was referred to the Larger Bench. Later, in view of
the circulars issued by Tariff Advisory Committee and
IRDA, it was felt that such reference to the Larger Bench is
(2009) 7 SCC 148
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
not necessary. The Apex Court has reproduced the
Circulars issued by the IRDA in this regard.
17. The directions of the IRDA are to be considered
in the light of the contentions taken up by the appellant-
Insurance Company in the written statement. Obviously,
the written statement was filed on 19.04.2013, which is
much later to the said Circular issued by the IRDA.
Therefore, it is evident that the contentions taken up by
the appellant-Insurance Company was very much clarified
by the IRDA much earlier point of time. But the written
statement does not refer to the said circular. Hence, there
cannot be a doubt that the package policy covers the risk
of the inmates of the vehicle.
18. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
has also placed reliance on the decision in the case of
JAGTAR SINGH ALIAS JAGDEV SINGH (supra), which
also lays reliance on the decision in the case of
BALAKRISHNAN (supra). It is evident that the Apex
Court has reiterated the decision in the case of
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
BALAKRISHNAN (supra) and therefore, the ratio laid
down in the decision in the case of BALAKRISHNAN
(supra) is very much applicable to the case on hand also.
19. The decision in the case of ORIENTAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SURENDRA
NATH LOOMBA AND OTHERS5 also holds that there is
no scintilla of doubt that a 'Comprehensive/package policy'
would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of
compensation for the occupant in a car. It was clarified
that the Act Policy and Comprehensive Policy stands on a
different footing and in view of the circular issued by the
IRDA, the inmate of the car is covered by the insurance, if
it is a 'package policy'.
20. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
Insurance Company contends that the decisions referred
by the petitioner pertains to an occupant of the car or a
pillion rider. It does not pertain to an employee. In the
(2012) 13 SCC 792
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
case on hand, the petitioner claims that he is the
employee of the respondent No.1, who is the owner of the
vehicle. Therefore, he tries to distinguish the case on
hand from the factual matrix of the decisions referred
supra. It is pertinent to note that one construction is,
whatever the nomenclature may be, the premium paid
determine the coverage. A comprehensive/package policy
may still be short of covering the occupant for not
collecting or paying the extra premium. In other words,
premium paid would determine the nature of the coverage
of the policy.
21. The second construction is, when the word
'package/comprehensive' is used, it gives the meaning
that 'every thing including the occupant, driver, owners
are covered under the policy'. The premium paid is
irrelevant and recede to oblivion.
22. By virtue of the circulars issued by IRDA
concerning the package policy, it appears that there is a
deviation from the contention that the premium paid
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
would determine the nature of the coverage of the policy.
Therefore, when the decisions mentioned supra clearly
mention that the 'package policy' covers the inmates of
the vehicle, including the pillion rider, if it is a two
wheeler, there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner is
also covered by the 'package policy' issued by respondent
No.2-Insurance company.
23. Yet another aspect which is of importance is,
when the package policy covers the occupant of the
vehicle, entering into the further classification of the
occupant, i.e., whether he is an employee, relative of the
employee or relative of the owner etc., would be
irrelevant. The word 'comprehensive/package policy' would
have no significance, if category of the occupant would
determine the coverage of the policy or nullify such
coverage of the policy. Of course, the insurance is a
contract, but the purpose and object of the Motor Vehicles
Act, to compensate a victim cannot be lost sight of.
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
24. From the stand point of insured, the 'package/
comprehensive policy' has the meaning to 'cover all the
liability' or 'specified package'. But, the granular details of
the package and the insured buying the coverage in the
packages are neither available in public domain nor in the
fine print of the policy. If the buyer of the policy has
options to make the policy cover in various aspects, then it
could have been said that the 'package policy' has these
options (or packages) available. In the case on hand, it is
evident that respondent No.2-Insurance Company had not
offered the coverages/packages even though, it is a
'package policy'. The difference between the 'package
policy' and the 'Act Policy' has not been clarified. It is
pertinent to note a perusal of the Ex.R1-policy shows that
it is a 'package policy' and if it is not a 'package policy',
how it is different from an 'Act Policy' is not forthcoming.
Therefore, it would be a futile exercise to enter into a
discussion, as to whether the premium paid would
determine the nature of the policy. On the other hand, it
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
would suffice to hold that the 'package policy' covers the
risk of inmates as per circular issued by IRDA and the
policy having been issued in 2012, the said policy should
cover the clarification or the circular issued by IRDA in this
regard. It appears that in recent years the insurance
Companies have started specifying the number of inmates
of the vehicles covered under the package policy.
25. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention
of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the
policy did not cover the risk of the inmate of the vehicle.
Consequently, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company,
on this count, is liable to be rejected.
Regarding Point No.2:
26. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is inadequate, it is submitted that the Tribunal did
not adopt the structural formula in respect of the disability
sustained by the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
judgment shows that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.6,41,995/- and separate head in respect of the loss on
account of disability was globally considered at
Rs.2,00,000/-. The Tribunal, however, has held that there
is a disability of 18% and the income of the petitioner was
Rs.12,000/- per month. Obviously, the petitioner has not
examined the employer i.e., respondent No.1 and the
respondent No.1 also had not filed any written statement
admitting the claim of the petitioner.
27. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal clearly
erred in holding that the income of the petitioner was
Rs.12,000/- per month. The Certificate issued by the
respondent No.1-Prashanth produced at Ex.P8 has not
been proved as required under law. Therefore, the
Tribunal should have adopted the notional income in
coming to the conclusion in the matter.
28. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority for the purpose of settlement of
disputes before Lok-Adalat prescribe a notional income of
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
Rs.7,000/- per month for the year 2012. In umpteen
number of decisions and also in the case of
SMT.MARIYAMMA VS. SUYAMBULINGAM V. AND
ANOTHER6, this Court has held that the guidelines issued
by KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages fixed
under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the notional
income has to be held to be Rs.7,000/- per month.
29. The petitioner contends that he was an
Electrician and he had suffered the following injuries in the
accident:
"(I) 1 x 1 cm laceration present on left parietal area.
(II) small abrasion on the sternum
(III) 4 x 2 cm laceration on the left knee point
(IV) 3 x 3 cm laceration on the left leg posteriorly with
bleeding
(V) Extradural hematoma in the left fronto temporal
area
(VI) Fracture of squamous temporal bone on the left
side.
(VII) Fracture of lateral wall of left orbit
(VIII) Fracture of mandible
(IX) Fracture of left tibia
(X) Fracture of left femur."
30. PW.2, who has assessed the disability of the
petitioner has stated that there is deformity in the left
MFA No.7404/2014, DD:06.12.2022
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
knee, petitioner walks with short limb gait, there is 2 cms
shortening in the left femur, 1 cms shortening in left tibia,
and movements of the left leg and left knee are restricted.
Therefore, he has assessed the disability of 18% in the left
lower limb. When we consider the avocation of the
petitioner that he was an Electrician, it can be said that
functional disability is 10%. Hence, the 'loss of future
income' is calculated as Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 18 x 10%
=1,51,200/-. So far as 'pain and suffering' is concerned,
the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.50,000/-
and no enhancement is required.
31. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,100/-
for 'attendant charges'. Considering the period of inpatient
treatment on two spells, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded
under this head. The petitioner has produced the medical
bills and the actual medical bills are to the tune of
Rs.4,31,995/-. Therefore, the same has to be awarded to
the petitioner.
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
32. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/-
under the head of 'loss of income during laid up period'.
Considering the nature of the injuries, it can safely be said
that the petitioner was unable to resume his work at least
for a period of 5 months. Therefore, Rs.35,000/-
(Rs.7,000/- x 5 ) is awarded to him under this head.
33. The Tribunal has not awarded any
compensation under the head of 'loss of amenities in life'.
The petitioner has to suffer the 'short limb gait' for rest of
his life. Therefore, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under
this head. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.7,28,195/- under the following heads:
Sl. Amount
Particulars
No. (in Rs.)
1. Pain and sufferings 50,000/-
2. Attendant, food and extra
10,000/-
nourishment
3. Medical expenses 4,31,995/-
4. Loss of future income 1,51,200/-
5. Loss of income 35,000/-
6. Loss of amenities in life 50,000/-
Total 7,28,195/-
Less: Awarded by the Tribunal 7,12,095/-
Enhancement 16,100/-
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
34. Thus, there will be an enhancement of
Rs.16,100/- with interest.
35. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company
contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
carries an interest at 9% p.a. Learned counsel submits
that the compensation awarded are primarily in respect of
future entitlements of the petitioner. Therefore, he
contends that grant of interest at 9% p.a., would be a
bonanza and cannot come within the purview of just
compensation.
36. The decision of a Division Bench of this Court in
the case of MS. JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS VS.
VENKATESHAN V. AND OTHERS7 was pressed into
service by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
In view of the ratio laid down in the decision of the said
case, it would be proper to reduce the rate of interest from
MFA No.5896/2018 & Conn.Matters
DD 24/8/2020
- 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
9% p.a. to 6% p.a. Hence, the rate of interest shall be 6%
p.a. on the compensation amount.
37. In view of the above, both the appeals deserve
to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Both the appeals are allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned Judgment and Award dated
22.06.2016 passed by the Tribunal in
MVC.No.1723/2012 is modified. The
petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.Rs.7,28,195/- along with interest at 6%
p.a., from the date of petition till its
realization instead of instead of
Rs.7,12,095/- awarded by the Tribunal.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the compensation amount within a
period of six weeks from the date of this
order.
(iv) The amount in deposit before this Court in
MFA No.188/2017 is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
- 27 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45559
(v) Rest of the conditions imposed by the
Tribunal in respect of the FD and etc.,
remain unaltered.
Sd/-
JUDGE
tsn*
