Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Government Insurance ... vs Sri K. Jayaramappa on 10 January, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1212
MFA No. 4661 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4661 OF 2021 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT
INSURANCE DEPARTMENT
MOTOR BRANCH
BENGALURU-560 001
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANJU RAYAPPA, AGA)
AND:
1. SRI K.JAYARAMAPPA
S/O.KEMPANNA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT NO.100
KAKACHOKKANDAHALLI VILLAGE
SIDLAGHATTA
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT
ALSO R/AT NO.18, 3RD MAIN
Digitally
signed by B YELAHANKA, BENGALURU
LAVANYA
2. THE CHIEF OFFICER
Location:
HIGH TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
COURT OF VIJAYAPURA
KARNATAKA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI J.V.RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1212
MFA No. 4661 of 2021
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED U/S.173(1)
OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.09.2018 PASSED IN
MVC NO.39/2013 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
SIDLAGHATTA AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Karnataka
Government Insurance Department (KGID) challenging the
judgment and award dated 19.09.2018 passed in
MVC.No.39/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Sidlaghatta (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.
3. Brief facts of the case is as under:
On 29.03.2012 at about 1.30 p.m., when the
claimant was talking to his relative standing on footpath
near Kammasandra gate, Devanahalli Taluk, the driver of
Tractor bearing registration No.KA-04 2593 and Trailer
NC: 2024:KHC:1212
bearing registration No.KA-43 G-54 came in a rash and
negligent manner and hit the claimant and his relative
Sonnappa, as a result, they sustained grievous injuries.
Thereafter, they were shifted to Government Hospital,
Vijayapura where first aid was given and later shifted to
Deeksha Hospital, Yelahanka and the claimant was
admitted as an inpatient in Deeksha Hospital from
29.03.2012 and 30.03.2012 and the claimant sustained
displaced fracture of upper 1/3rd both bones right leg and
deep cut lacerated wound over anteno lateral aspect of
right leg joint below knee joint.
3.1 It is further stated that after discharge, the
claimant took follow up treatment once in a week in a
private Hospital and further stated that he spent
Rs.2,50,000/- towards hospitalisation, medical expenses,
treatment, attendant charges, food and nourishment,
conveyance, transportation and further stated that prior to
the accident, the claimant was doing agricultural work and
earning Rs.15,000/- per month and he was the only
NC: 2024:KHC:1212
earning member of the family and contributed his entire
earning for the maintenance of the family.
3.2 It is further stated that due to the injuries
sustained in the accident, he is now not able to do
agricultural work and he has lost the income and further,
he is suffering from mental agony and discomfort and
financial loss.
3.3 It is further stated that the accident occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the above
said tractor and the said tractor belongs to respondent
No.1 and it was insured with respondent No.2 and
therefore, both respondents Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the
claimant. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition.
3.4 On service of notice, respondent No.1 was duly
served and appeared through its counsel and filed
objections. Respondent No.2 was placed ex parte vide
order dated 18.01.2014. Respondent No.1 in its
objections stated that the claimant has suppressed the
NC: 2024:KHC:1212
material facts and it is not aware of the age and
occupation of the claimant and further stated that the
claimant was not earning Rs.15,000/- per month from
agricultural work and the claimant has not incurred any
medical expenses for the treatment of injuries and the
claimant has filed a false petition. It further stated
respondent No.2 is the Insurer of the vehicle of
respondent No.1 and the driver of the same had a valid
Driving Licence and therefore, prays for dismissal of the
petition.
3.5 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed
relevant issues for consideration.
3.6 In order to substantiate the issue and to
establish the case, the claimant got examined himself as
PW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P13,
whereas, respondent No.1 examined two witnesses as
RWs.1 and 2 and got marked documents as Exs.D1 to
D13.
NC: 2024:KHC:1212
3.7 On the basis of material evidence produced by
the parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.7,36,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. and held that
respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to
pay the compensation. However, respondent No.2-
Insurance Company was directed to deposit the
compensation amount along with interest within one
month from the date of award.
3.8 Being aggrieved by the exorbitant compensation
amount awarded by the tribunal, the appellant-KGID is
before this Court challenging the same.
4. It is the contention of learned Additional
Government Advocate for KGID that the tribunal has
grossly erred in awarding the compensation of
Rs.5,94,000/- towards loss of future income by
considering the functional disability of respondent No.1 at
50% and by considering the income of respondent No.1 at
Rs.9,000/- per month when there being no material to
that effect. He further contended that the Doctor has not
NC: 2024:KHC:1212
been examined. Hence, the tribunal ought not to have
taken 50% disability for the purpose of future loss of
income due to disability.
4.1 It is further contended that the tribunal has
grossly erred in relying on the disability certificate and
identity card for differently abled persons issued by the
Directorate for Empowerment of Differently Abled Senior
Citizens, Bengaluru, for the purpose of taking the
percentage of disability, in the absence of any evidence of
the said documents. As per Ex.P12-disability certificate
and identity card, it is clear that the overall permanent
physical impairment is mentioned as 45%, but the tribunal
has considered the disability at 50%. The tribunal, in
normal course, will take 1/3rd disability to the whole body,
but in this particular case, in the absence of the medical
evidence, the disability certificate shown at 45%, the
tribunal has taken the disability at 50%, thereby awarding
higher compensation to the claimant.
NC: 2024:KHC:1212
4.2 He further contends that the compensation
awarded towards pain and suffering by the tribunal to the
tune of Rs.50,000/- is exorbitant when compared to the
pain and suffering caused to the claimant, due to the
injuries sustained in the accident.
4.3 He further contends that under other heads also,
the tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation, which
is on the higher side, only to enrich the claimant, though
no material is placed before the tribunal. On these
grounds, he seeks to set aside the judgment and award
passed by the tribunal.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-claimant
contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the
judgment and award passed by the tribunal. On the basis
of material evidence placed on record by the claimant and
on the basis of the cross-examination of witnesses, the
tribunal has rightly arrived at a conclusion of awarding the
compensation, which does not warrant interference at the
hands of this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:1212
6. Having heard learned Additional Government
Advocate and learned counsel for appellant-claimant, the
accident occurred on 29.03.2012. There is no dispute with
regard to occurrence of accident, involvement of vehicle
and the injuries sustained by the respondent-claimant.
7. Though the claimant has stated that he was an
agriculturist and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month,
no proof of income is produced. However, the tribunal has
taken the income of minimum wages at Rs.9,000/- per
month. When there is no proof of income, the notional
income of the Legal Services Authority chart prescribes
Rs.7,000/- per month for the accident of the year 2012.
The same is required to be taken in this case. The age of
the claimant though stated as 65 years, there is no
documentary proof to that effect. In the cross-
examination, the age is stated as 57 years and also as 65
years.
8. As per Ex.P11-election identity card, the age of
the claimant is shown as 67 years as on the date of the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1212
accident. Therefore, the age is taken as 67 years. The
appropriate multiplier would be '9' instead of '11', which is
applied by the tribunal.
9. The claimant has produced the disability certificate
at Ex.P13, which discloses that there is a permanent
disability of 45%. However, the tribunal has taken
disability at 50%. In my opinion, the tribunal is
incompetent to take the disability @ 50% when the
opinion expressed by the Doctor, who is expert and
competent to say about the disability. Therefore, the loss
of future earning capacity due to disability would be
Rs.3,40,200/- (Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 9 x 45%) as against
Rs.5,94,000/- by the tribunal.
10. Towards loss of earning during laid-up period,
this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.28,000/-
(Rs.7,000/- x 4).
11. The receipts with regard to medical expenses
produced by the claimant is to the tune of Rs.9,000/-,
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1212
whereas the tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards
medical expenses without any basis. Hence, this Court
deems it appropriate to award Rs.9,000/- under this
head.
12. The compensation awarded by the tribunal
towards travelling expenses, future medical expenses, loss
of expectation of life, loss of amenities, damages of pain
and suffering does not call for interfere and the same is
retained.
13. Learned Additional Government Advocate
vehemently argued that the interest may be reduced as it
is not in consonance with the Act. Accepting the
submission of learned Additional Government Advocate,
the interest is reduced to 6% in consonance with Section
34 of CPC.
14. In view of the above, the claimant would be
entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,97,200/- as
against Rs.7,36,000/- as mentioned in the table below:
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1212
Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of future earning capacity 3,40,200-00
due to disability
Loss of earning during laid up 28,000-00
period
Medical expenses 9,000-00
Traveling expenses 10,000-00
Future medical expenses 10,000-00
Loss of expectation of life 25,000-00
Loss of amenities 25,000-00
Damages for pain and suffering 50,000-00
TOTAL 4,97,200-00
15. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;
ii) The judgment and award dated 19.09.2018
passed in MVC.No.39/2013 by the Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta, is modified;
iii) The compensation amount of Rs.7,36,000/-
awarded by the tribunal is reduced to
Rs.4,97,200/- along with interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till realisation;
iv) The entire compensation amount shall be
deposited within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1212
v) Out of the compensation amount of
Rs.4,97,200/-, Rs.1,00,000/- shall be kept in
Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank and
remaining amount shall be disbursed in favour
of the claimant upon proper verification;
vi) The original records shall be transmitted to the
jurisdictional tribunal forthwith.
Pending interlocutory application does not survive for
consideration and the same pales into insignificance.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LB
