The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Sri.T.R.Maruthi
2023 Latest Caselaw 635 Kant

                                         MFA.5501/2014
                            1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                       BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

             MFA NO.5501 OF 2014 (MV)

BETWEEN:

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
BEHIND VIDYA GANAPATHY TEMPLE
M.H.BORAIAH BUILDING
V.V.ROAD, MANDYA-571 401
REPTD. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER
AND DEPUTY MANAGER
REGIONAL OFFICE, LEO COMPLEX
NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS
BANGALORE-560 025.                       ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI GUNASHEKAR R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . SRI.T.R.MARUTHI
    AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
    S/O K.T. RAMEGOWDA
    THOPPANAHALLI VILLAGE
    MADDUR TALUK
    MANDYA DISTRICT
    PIN CODE-571428.

2 . MR. ANANDA KUMAR
    MAJOR
    S/O SRI NARASIMAIAH
    NO.8, DEVAGIRI, KUMBALAGODU
    KENGERI
    BANGALORE-560 074.                ...RESPONDENTS

(SRI MARIGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH,
 VIDE ORDER DATED 06.11.2014)
                                                        MFA.5501/2014
                               2

      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.6.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.68/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MADDUR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION
OF RS.1,60,300/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

     THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 16.12.2022 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                      JUDGMENT

In this appeal, the appellant/Insurance

Company has challenged the judgment dated

13.06.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.68/2011 by the

Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Maddur ('the Tribunal' in short).

2. The appellant was the second respondent,

respondent No.1 was the petitioner and respondent

No.2 was respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. The

parties will be referred with respect to their status

before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that, on

19.04.2010 at about 5.30 p.m., the petitioner near MFA.5501/2014

Nandibasaveshwara temple at Chikkankanahalli

village, was hit by a motor cycle bearing No.KA-

41/K-6857 and has sustained injuries. The petitioner

has claimed compensation of Rs.3,51,000/-. The

claim was opposed by the Insurance Company. The

Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,60,300/-

with 6% interest. Aggrieved by the same, the

insurer is before this court.

4. Heard Sri.Gunashekar.R., learned counsel

for the insurer and Sri.Marigowda, learned counsel

for the respondent No.1/petitioner.

5. According to learned counsel for the

Insurance Company when the petitioner visited the

General Hospital, Maddur on 19.04.2010 with a

history of hit by a motorcycle, the injuries were

noted in Ex.P11/MLC register by the Medical Officer

and contrary, after three months, Ex.P7/certificate

was issued by Dr.K.M.Basavaraj, Orthopedic

Surgeon. In EX.P7, the address of the said Doctor is MFA.5501/2014

not mentioned. In Ex.P7, Doctor has recorded

opinion for having examined the petitioner for pain

and swelling on the left hand and wrist and assessed

disability. Exs.P9 and P10/X-rays show injuries

suffered by the petitioner to his right hand, and the

disability assessed to left hand. The Tribunal has not

appreciated these aspects and committed an error in

awarding compensation and sought for dismissal of

the petition.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner

has contended that there is no anomaly or error in

the documents, they are misread by the Insurance

Company, the petitioner is an innocent villager, the

documents are in the language unknown to the

petitioner, the Tribunal has rightly taken into

consideration all these aspects and awarded the

compensation and supported the impugned

judgment.

MFA.5501/2014

7. I gave my anxious consideration to the

arguments advanced on both sides and perused the

materials on record.

8. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner in

the claim petition did mention the injuries all over

the body. Ex.P11 is MLC extract issued by the

General Hospital, Maddur, its recitals indicate the

petitioner informing the injury suffered by him in a

road traffic accident. The medical officer, who

treated him, has noted the following injuries:

(i) Deep abrasion over right elbow;

(ii) Deep abrasion over left elbow;

(iii) c/o pain on right scapula;

(iv) c/o pain on left limb.

9. It has been held by the Hon'ble apex Court

in North West Karnataka Road Transport

Corporation -vs- Gourabai and Others1 that the

Doctors will not make any entry in the records

(2009) 15 SCC 165 MFA.5501/2014

contrary to what has been informed to them by the

injured at the time of admission. If Ex.P11 is

appreciated in the light of this judgment, there

cannot be any hesitation for the Tribunal to accept

the contents of Ex.P11 to the effect that the

petitioner has sustained the said injures in the road

traffic accident.

10. By relying on Ex.P7/certificate issued by

PW-2 Dr.Basavaraj K.M., the contention of the

Insurance Company is that the petitioner was

treated for the injury on the left hand and wrist, but

in Ex.P2/complaint, the injuries mentioned on right

hand, right shoulder and right leg and therefore, the

claim is fictitious and the Tribunal has ignored the

same.

11. As seen from the records, though the

petitioner has not mentioned the nature of injuries in

his affidavit evidence, in the cross-examination of

the petitioner, there is no denial or anything MFA.5501/2014

contradictory is elicited about injury either on right

arm or left arm. Ex.P11 speaks clearly that the injury

on both right and left limb. It takes corroboration

from the averments made in the complaint.

Therefore, I do not find any force in the argument on

behalf of the Insurance Company. Hence, the

Tribunal has rightly accepted the medical evidence,

considered the left wrist injury and determined the

compensation.

12. As regarding the quantum of compensation

is concerned, the Tribunal has referred to the

evidence of PW-2 working in the Government

Hospital, Maddur, who issued certificate in his

private letter head instead of using official hospital

records. The recitals of Ex.P11 stand in support of

Ex.P7 and I do not find any infirmity or reason to

discard it in assessing 10% whole body disability.

13. The petitioner was aged 30 years in the

year 2010, one can make an assessment of income MFA.5501/2014

of a person with no proof of income will earn not less

than Rs.5,500/- per month. However, the Tribunal

has considered the income at Rs.4,500/- and

assessment of loss of income due to disability at

Rs.91,800/- is on the lower side. Assessment of

Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/-

towards loss of amenities in life, so also loss of

income for three months of laid up at Rs.13,500/- is

proper. The Tribunal has not considered the medical

expenses, attendant charges, travelling expenses

and also food and nourishment. Even if it is added

towards pain and suffering, the compensation so

assessed at Rs.1,60,300/- is on lower side, hence,

the arguments of the Insurance Company has no

force.

14. After evaluating the evidence on record,

the plea of the Insurance Company regarding injury

to right hand and disability assessed on the left hand

has been explained. In view of the discussions made

above, I do not find any collusion or tampering or MFA.5501/2014

manipulation of any records. Therefore, the

impugned judgment stands to its reasoning and the

appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be

dismissed accordingly.

In the result, I pass the following order:

The appeal is dismissed.

The amount in deposit, if any, shall be

transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursal.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KNM/-