Karnataka High Court
Sri Nithyaraj Kasinathan vs The Manager on 28 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43099
MFA 621/2022
C/W MFA 5303/ 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 621 OF 2022 C/W
MFA NO. 5303 OF 2021 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO. 621/2022
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
NO 3, 1ST FLOOR, MANANDI PLAZA
ST.MARKS ROAD, BESIDE ST.MARKS HOTEL
BANGALORE 560 001, REP BY ITS MANAGER
LEGAL, NO 28, 5 TH FLOOR, EAST WING
CENTENARY BUILDING, M G ROAD
BENGALURU 560 001 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR D., ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI NITHYARAJ KASINATHAN
S/O KASINATHAN, AGED 33 YEARS
R/AT ROYAL INSTITUTION
Digitally signed by MALA SURVEY NO 1/2, MALLAPURA
KN
NELAMANGALA TQ
Location: HIGH COURT BANGALORE RURAL DIST 562 123
OF KARNATAKA
2. MRS.HANUMAKKA
W/O MUNIYAPPA A G
R/AT AVERAHALLI VILLAGE
DASANAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TQ 562 123
(OWNER OF OFFENDING VEHICLE TRACTOR AND
TRAILER BEARING NO KA 52-T-548 AND 549)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.S.ANAND, ADV. FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 28.11.2023
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43099
MFA 621/2022
C/W MFA 5303/ 2021
IN MFA NO. 5303/2021
BETWEEN:
SRI NITHYARAJ KASINATHAN
S/O KASINATHAN, AGED 31 YEARS
R/AT ROYAL INSTITUTION
SURVEY NO 1/2, MALLAPURA
NELAMANGALA TQ
BANGALORE RURAL DIST 562 123 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.K.S.ANAND, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
NO 3, 1ST FLOOR, MANANDI PLAZA
ST.MARKS ROAD, BESIDE ST.MARKS ROAD
BESIDE ST.MARK'S HOTEL,
BANGALORE 560 001
2. MRS.HANUMAKKA
W/O MUNIYAPPA A G
R/AT AVERAHALLI VILLAGE
DASANAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TQ 560 079 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. V. RAJANNA, ADV. FOR R2)
THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.07.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 5379/2018 ON THE FILE
OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM
AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-26), AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS. 6,78,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 9
PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION (AND IN MFA NO.5303/2021) PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:43099
MFA 621/2022
C/W MFA 5303/ 2021
JUDGMENT
In these two appeals, both petitioners as well
as the Insurance Company have challenged the
judgment dated 23.07.2023 passed in
M.V.C.No.5379/2018 by the XXIV Addl. Small Causes
Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Bengaluru (SCCH-26)
('the Tribunal' for short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties
shall be referred to as per their status before the
Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 20.08.2018 at
about 11:30 pm, the petitioner met with an accident
while riding the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-
52/L-5624 as a pillion rider on Tumkur-Bengaluru
NH-4 near Madavara fly-over, hit by a tractor-trailer
bearing Reg.No.KA-52/T-548-549 injuring him.
After taking treatment at Sparsh Hospital, the
petitioner moved the Tribunal for grant of
compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. Claim was
NC: 2023:KHC:43099
opposed by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal
after taking the evidence, awarded compensation of
Rs.6,78,500/- with interest of 9% p.a. Pleading
inadequacy and seeking enhancement, the petitioner
has filed M.F.A.No.5303/2021. The Insurance
Company has filed M.F.A.No.621/2022 on the ground
that the petitioner is having an avocation and there
is no question for assessment of of loss of future
income and the interest awarded at 9% p.a. is
excess.
4. Heard the arguments of
Sri. Vijaya Kumar. D, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company and Sri. K.S. Anand, learned
counsel for respondent No.1.
5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
Insurance Company that the petitioner is said to be
working as a Lecturer in Royal Nursing College and
even as of today, he is working as an Assistant
Professor. In view of the promotion, it is clear that
NC: 2023:KHC:43099
the injury has not affected him to do his job, but the
Tribunal has committed error in assessing the loss of
future earnings. It is further contended that the
compensation towards incidental expenses like
attendant charges, food and nourishment, etc., are
on the higher side, the rate of interest awarded at
9% p.a. is in excess and he sought for interference.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner
has contended that the petitioner has suffered
fracture of type-IV fracture neck of left femur, he
was under hospitalization for 7 days. He was
drawing a salary of Rs.25,000/- as established in
Exs.P8 to P11. The petitioner has lost the job on
account of the injury, he has no avocation as on the
date of the petition. The Tribunal has rightly
considered the award of assessment of future
earnings and committed error in taking the salary as
Rs.12,500/- notionally. No compensation was
awarded for future medical expenses, so also the
NC: 2023:KHC:43099
compensation awarded towards loss of amenities
and discomfort is lesser. It is further contended that
the Medical Officer who is examined before the
Tribunal has assessed the disability suffered by the
petitioner at 24.33%, whereas the Tribunal has
taken 10% which is inadequate and he sought for
considering the disability at 24.33%, salary of
Rs.25,000/- as against Rs.12,500/- and he sought
for enhancement.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on both sides and also perused
the materials on record.
8. There is no dispute as to the accident, cause
of the accident, petitioner sustaining the injuries in
the said accident. The material on record did point
out that on the date of accident, the petitioner was
working as a Lecturer at Royal Nursing College,
Bengaluru and he was drawing a salary of
Rs.25,000/- per month. The ID Card pointed out
NC: 2023:KHC:43099
that he is now working as an Assistant Professor.
The petitioner has not produced any document to
show that he has lost the job. But the certificate
issued by the college in the year 2019 speaks that
he is 'valuable teaching faculty and an asset to the
institution'. These are the aspects which show that
he was still under employment and he was not
terminated from the services.
9. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.6,78,427/-. As rightly contended by
learned counsel for the petitioner, the income taken
at Rs.12,500/- is contrary to the material on record.
Loss of amenities and discomfort is assessed at
lower side. The medical expenses itself comes
around Rs.2,86,000/- out of total compensation.
Taking into consideration all these aspects, even
after reassessment of the compensation, I do not
found any reason that the award passed by the
Tribunal including the loss of future earnings is on
NC: 2023:KHC:43099
the lower side compared to the notional assessment.
Hence, the circumstances do not warrant
interference in the assessment made by the Tribunal
with regard to the quantum.
10. As regarding rate of interest is concerned,
the Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. It is
not in dispute that no banks will offer interest at 9%
on fixed deposits in the year 2018 or 2019. One
must remember that any interest earned from the
fixed deposit more than Rs.10,000/- will attract the
Income Tax. If these factors are taken into
consideration, the Court must be very careful in
awarding the interest at higher rate. In this regard,
the Division Bench of this Court in Ms. Joyeeta
Bose and Ors. -Vs- Venkateshan. V and Ors.1
with reference to Section 149(1) of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, Rule 253 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1989 and Section 34 of Civil Procedure Code,
M.F.A.No.5896/2018 c/w M.F.As.No.4444/2018 and 4659/2018
(MV), decided on 24.08.2020
NC: 2023:KHC:43099
at Para 52 has laid down principles regarding award
of interest, it reads thus:
"52.Thus, under Section 34 of CPC being
squarely applicable to the interest awarded by the
tribunal and Section 34 empowering the tribunal to
award pendente lite interest and discretion being
vested with the Court/tribunal to award interest
from the date of suit or petition is to the maximum
extent of 6% p.a. or in other words, not exceeding
6% p.a., the contention raised by the learned
Advocates appearing for the Insurance Company
deserves to be accepted and accordingly, it is
accepted. . . . . . . . . . . ."
In view of the settled principles, it is
reasonable to award interest at 6% p.a. on the total
compensation rather than confirming the rate of
interest awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the
appeal filed by the Insurance Company merits
consideration and the appeal filed by the petitioner is
devoid of merits. In the result, the following:
ORDER
i) M.F.A.No.621/2022 is allowed-in-part.
ii) MFA No.5303/2021 is dismissed.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43099
iii) Impugned judgment and award is modified
only to the extent of rate of interest from
9% to 6% on the total compensation.
iv) Rest of the judgment of the Tribunal is kept
intact.
v) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation with interest of 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till the date of
deposit within eight weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of the judgment.
vi) Amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal along with
records forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PA
CT:HS
