Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Manager The New India ... vs Mr. Riyaz Ahamad on 1 August, 2024

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                         -1-
                                                      NC: 2024:KHC:30545
                                                 MFA No. 6390 of 2021




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

                                       BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
               MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6390 OF 2021 (MV-I)
              BETWEEN:
                    THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
                    THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
                    A.M.ARCADE, NEAR VIDYARTHI BHAVAN
                    C.G.HOSPITAL ROAD, DAVANAGERE

                    THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
                    THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
                    MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS
                    M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001

                    REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER
                    SRI K.SATISH CHANDRA
                                                           ...APPELLANT
              (BY SRI ANUP SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE)
              AND:
              1.    MR.RIYAZ AHAMAD
Digitally           S/O.MR.ABDUL REHAMAN
signed by B         AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
LAVANYA             OCC: MECHANIC
Location:           R/AT SIDDESHWARA NAGARA
HIGH                CHIKKAOL, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                    NOW R/AT HOSADURGA TOWN
                    CHITRADURGA DISTRICT

              2.    SHANKARANARAYANA
                    CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
                    NO.7, RESIDENCY ROAD
                    OLD NO.9, RAJARAM MOHAN RAO ROAD
                    BENGALURU-560 025
                              -2-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC:30545
                                    MFA No. 6390 of 2021




    (RC OWNER OF THE LORRY
    BEARING No.KA-01/AD-2324)
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
    SRI VARUN KASTHURI FOR
    SMT.NITYA KALIGOTLA, ADVOCATES FOR R-2)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
09.08.2021 PASSED IN MVC No.430/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, HOSADURGA.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR


                     ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance

Company challenging the judgment and award dated

09.08.2021 passed in MVC.No.430/2019 on the file of the

Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Hosadurga (for short 'the

tribunal'). This appeal is founded on the premise of

exorbitant compensation awarded by the tribunal.

2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

their status before the tribunal.

NC: 2024:KHC:30545

3. The tribunal has awarded total compensation of

Rs.13,14,574/- with interest at 6% per annum and

directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.

4. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel

for appellant-Insurance Company that the judgment and

award passed by the tribunal is contrary to the material

evidence on record, both oral and documentary. He further

contends that the tribunal has awarded exorbitant

compensation by assessing the higher income without

there being any material placed on record. In fact, he

contends that the tribunal failed to take into consideration

the evidence of PW.1, wherein during cross-examination,

he has admitted that he was earning an income between

the range of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9,000/- p.m.

4.1 It is further contended by learned counsel that

the tribunal has committed a gross error in awarding 40%

towards future prospects. The injury sustained by the

claimant is not so grave, serious or detrimental to him

from doing any activity of the nature, which he would do.

NC: 2024:KHC:30545

Even according to PW.2-Doctor, the disability is 17.33% to

the whole body. Therefore, he contends that the income

awarded has to be reduced and the future prospects has

to be set-aside. It is further contended that under other

heads also, the tribunal awarded exorbitant compensation,

which requires reduction. On these grounds, he seeks to

allow this appeal and consequently, reduce the

compensation amount.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-

claimant vehemently contends that the tribunal has

awarded compensation in accordance to the materials

placed on record, both oral and documentary. The

compensation awarded is justifiable for the reason that the

claimant, who was a Mechanic by profession, is unable to

do the same work as he was doing prior to the occurrence

of accident. Therefore, the tribunal, on consideration of

the material on record and the evidence adduced by the

Doctor, has awarded 40% towards future prospects.

Without there being any proof of income, as per the Legal

NC: 2024:KHC:30545

Services Authority chart, the tribunal has taken the

income at Rs.12,500/- per month, which is justifiable.

Hence, the same does not call for interference. He further

contends that under other heads, the tribunal awarded

just and reasonable compensation, which also does not

call for interference.

6. Having heard learned counsel for Insurance

Company and learned counsel for claimant, the occurrence

of accident, involvement of vehicle and injuries sustained

by the claimant due to the accident are proved and

established by production of Exs.P1 to P17. Therefore, the

negligence is rightly attributed as against the driver of the

Lorry.

7. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation,

income, disability and appropriate multiplier, no doubt the

claimant has stated in his claim petition and also in his

affidavit that he was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per

month as a Welding Mechanic, but no proof of income is

NC: 2024:KHC:30545

produced before the tribunal. The tribunal, on the basis of

the Legal Services Authority chart, has taken the income

at Rs.12,500/- per month, whereas in the cross-

examination of PW.1, the claimant has admitted that he

was earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9,000/- per month.

Therefore, when the claimant himself admitted that his

income is Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9,000/- per month, the

question of reverting to the notional income as per the

Legal Service Authority chart would not arise in the facts

and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the income is

reduced to Rs.9,000/- per month.

8. Further, the tribunal has committed a gross error

in adding future prospects at 40% to the income under the

guise that the injury sustained by the claimant is serious

in nature.

9. On careful perusal of the materials placed on

record and the evidence adduced by PW.2-Doctor, it is

opined by the PW.2-Doctor that there is a disability to the

NC: 2024:KHC:30545

extent of 52% to a particular limb and 17.33% to the

whole body. I have perused Ex.P16, the photographs, the

claimant may be a Welding Mechanic, but the evidence

adduced by the Doctor and the documents produced by

the claimant do not appear that there is a serious disability

sustained by the claimant for awarding future prospects.

Therefore, on this count also, I am in agreement with

learned counsel for Insurance Company. Accordingly,

awarding of future prospects by the tribunal is set-aside.

Therefore, loss of income due to disability would be

reduced to Rs.3,36,895/- (Rs.9,000/- x 12 x 18 x

17.33%) as against Rs.6,55,074/- awarded by the

tribunal.

10. The tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain

and suffering. However, this Court deems it appropriate to

reduce the same to Rs.75,000/-.

11. The tribunal awarded Rs.3,39,500/- towards

medical expenses. It appears that there is duplication of

NC: 2024:KHC:30545

medical bills. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate

to reduce the same to Rs.2,34,949/-.

12. The tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards

conveyance/traveling expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards

attendant charges and nutritious food and Rs.50,000/-

towards loss of amenities, which do not call for

interference and the same are retained.

13. The tribunal awarded Rs.60,000/- towards future

medical expenses. However, this Court deems it

appropriate to reduce the same to Rs.40,000/-.

14. The tribunal awarded Rs.75,000/- towards loss of

income during treatment period. However, this Court

deems it appropriate to reduce the same to Rs.54,000/-.

15. The tribunal awarded Rs.60,000/- towards future

medical expenses. However, this Court deems it

appropriate to reduce the same to Rs.40,000/-.

NC: 2024:KHC:30545

16. In view of the above, the claimant would be

entitled to the reduced compensation of Rs.8,25,844/-

as against Rs.13,14,574/- awarded by the tribunal, as

mentioned in the table below:

Sl.         Head of compensation               Amount of
No.                                          compensation
                                                awarded
1.      Loss of income due to                     3,36,895-00
        disability
2.      Pain and suffering                         75,000-00
3.      Medical expenses                         2,34,949-00
4.      Conveyance/travelling                      25,000-00
        expenses
5.      Attendant charges and                      10,000-00
        nutritious food
6.      Loss of amenities                          50,000-00
6.      Future medical expenses                    40,000-00
7.      Loss of income during                      54,000-00
        treatment and rest period
                     TOTAL                       8,25,844-00

17. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;

ii) The impugned judgment and award dated

09.08.2021 passed in MVC.No.430/2019 on

the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT,

Hosadurga, is modified;

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:30545

iii) The respondent-claimant is entitled to the

reduced compensation of Rs.8,25,844/- as

against Rs.13,14,574/- awarded by the

tribunal along with interest at 6% per annum;

iv) The balance compensation amount shall be

paid/deposited by the appellant-Insurance

Company within a period of four weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

v) The amount in deposit before this Court, if

any, shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional