Karnataka High Court
Magma General Insurance Com Ltd vs Kotrappa S/O Hanumappa on 22 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6640
MFA No. 103092 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103092 OF 2016 (MV)
BETWEEN:
MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COM LTD,
MAGMA HOUSE, 24, PARK STREET,
CALCUTTA, REPRESENTED BY
MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED, HM ASTRID,
2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, NO.36, J.C. ROAD,
NEAR MINERVA CIRCLE, BENGALURU BY
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by JAGADISH T
R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. KOTRAPPA S/O. HANUMAPPA
KARNATAKA
@ HANUMANTHAPPA HALAWAGAL,
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE/HAMALI,
R/O. SOMALAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
2. MARTANDAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA GOUDAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SOMALAPUR VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6640
MFA No. 103092 of 2016
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
3. MALLAPPA
S/O. DYAMAPPA GOUDAR,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SOMALAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
4. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD, 2ND FLOOR, J.P & DEVI,
JAMBUKESHWARA ARCADE,
NO.69, MILLERS ROAD,
BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANJANEYA M, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADV. FOR R4;
NOTICE TO R2 & R3 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF
THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.04.2016
PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
AMACT RANEBENNUR IN MVC NO.377/2014 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6640
MFA No. 103092 of 2016
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up
for final disposal.
2. This appeal is filed by the insurer of tractor
(Insurance Company) challenging the judgment and award
dated 15.04.2016 passed in MVC.No.377/2014 by the
Addl. Senior Civil Judge & AMACT., Ranebennur (for short,
'Tribunal').
3. Heard Sri. Nagaraj C.Kolloori, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/insurer of tractor, Sri.
Anjaneya M., learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1/claimant and Sri.G.N.Raichur, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.4/insurer of
trailor.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal
has committed grave error in saddling the liability on the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6640
Insurance Company as the respondent No.1/claimant who
has sustained injuries in the road accident was the
gratuitous passenger in a tractor-trailor. It is submitted
that the award of compensation by the Tribunal on all the
other heads is also on the higher side, hence, he seeks to
reassess the same appropriately, by allowing the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1/claimant supports the impugned
judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that,
there is an amputation of left leg below the knee of the
injured/claimant, hence, the claimant has sustained
functional disability of 100%. Thus, he seeks to dismiss
the appeal.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the material
available on record.
7. It is not in dispute that the respondent
No.1/claimant met with a road accident on 22.12.2013. In
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6640
the said accident, he has sustained severe injuries and
later his left leg below the knee was amputated. In
support of his claim, he examined himself as PW1 and also
examined Dr.Umanath Ullal as PW2 who has deposed
before the Tribunal that the injured/claimant has sustained
80% disability. Considering the same, the Tribunal has
assessed income and disability of the claimant and
awarded total compensation of Rs.11,72,336/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till realization. This Court on re-appreciation of the
oral and documentary evidence available on record, is of
the considered view that the claimant has failed to
produce any cogent evidence with regard to his income. In
the absence of proof with regard to the income of the
claimant, this Court reassesses the income at Rs.7,000/-
per month placing reliance on the notional income chart
prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
8. Taking note of the amputation suffered by the
claimant and keeping in mind the Schedule-I, part 2 of the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6640
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, this Court reassesses
the disability of the claimant/injured to the extent of 50%.
9. There is no dispute with regard to application of
multiplier as '13'. Thus, loss of future income due to
disability is recomputed as under:
Rs.7,000/- (income) x 12(months) x 13 (multiplier) x 50%
(disability) = Rs.5,46,000/-
10. Taking note of the fact that the claimant's left
leg is amputated below knee and considering the disability
suffered by him, it would be just and appropriate to award
Rs.50,000/- under the head of 'purchase of artificial limb'.
This Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on
record, is of the considered view that, the claimant shall
be entitled to modified compensation under the following
heads:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6640
HEADS AMOUNT
(in Rs.)
Pain and suffering 80,000/-
Loss of amenities 75,000/-
Food, nourishment, special diet, conveyance 50,000/-
and attendant charges
Loss of income during laid-up-period 21,000/-
(i.e.Rs.7,000 X 3 months)
Medical expenses 1,06,336/-
Loss of future income due to disability 5,46,000/-
Towards purchase of artificial limb 50,000/-
Total 9,28,336/-
Thus, the claimant shall be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.9,28,336/- as against
Rs.11,72,336/- awarded by the Tribunal. The
compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
11. Insofar as the contention of the
appellant/Insurance Company that the respondent
No.1/claimant was a gratuitous passenger is concerned,
the same is taken only for the purpose of rejection. The
evidence available on record indicates that the respondent
No.1/claimant was working as a coolie at the time of the
accident. The complaint which is registered with the Police
indicates that the claimant works as coolie at the time of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6640
the accident. The oral testimony of PW1 also supports the
claim that he was working as coolie. Furthermore, policy
at Ex.R6 indicates that the vehicle in question was covered
risk of two employees including the driver. Admittedly, in
the instant case, the driver and the injured were the only
two persons in the offending vehicle at the time of the
accident. On this ground also, the contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has
no merit consideration. Accordingly, the said contention is
rejected by saddling of liability on the appellant/insurer of
tractor.
12. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
a) Appeal stands allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified to an extent that the
claimant would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.9,28,336/- as against
Rs.11,72,336/- awarded by the Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6640
c) The entire compensation amount shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of petition till the date of payment.
d) The appellant/Insurance Company (insurer of
tractor) shall deposit the compensation
amount with accrued interest before the
Tribunal within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
e) On such deposit, the same shall be released
in favour of the claimant/injured.
f) Registry to transmit the amount in deposit
along with the records, if any, to the Tribunal
forthwith.
g) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RH
Ct-an
