Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Sri Lokesh N M on 26 July, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29595
MFA No. 5420 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 561 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5420 OF 2021 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 561 OF 2022(MV-I)
IN MFA NO.5420/2021
BETWEEN:
LOKESH N M
S/O MUDDABASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.101, NADAKALAPURA
VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
NANJEGOWDANADODDI POST,
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed by (BY SRI. NAIK KRISHNA VENKATARAMAN, ADVOCATE)
VEDAVATHI A K
Location: High
Court of AND:
Karnataka
1. THE MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
NO.3, 1ST FLOOR, MANANDI PLAZA
ST. MARKS ROAD,
BESIDE ST. MARKS HOTEL
BENGALURU-1
2. MR. DINESH KUMAR B M
MAJOR
NO.236/6, BAZAAR STREET
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29595
MFA No. 5420 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 561 of 2022
ANEKAL TOWN AND TALUK
BENGALURU-58
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (VC)
VIDE ORDER DATED:17/01/2024, NOTICE TO R2 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 02.08.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2926/2019
ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-14,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.561/2022
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
NO.3, 1ST FLOOR, MANANDI PLAZA
ST. MARKS ROAD,
BESIDE ST. MARKS HOTEL
BENGALURU- 560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL
NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING
CENTENARY BUILDING
MG ROAD
BENGALURU 560001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE (VC) )
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29595
MFA No. 5420 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 561 of 2022
AND:
1. SRI. LOKESH N M
S/O MUDDABASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.101, NADAKALAPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
NANJEGOWDANADODDI POST,
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.
2. MR. DINESH KUMAR B M
MAJOR
NO.236/6, BAZAAR STREET
ANEKAL TOWN AND TALUK
BENGALURU-58
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.V.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 02.08.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2926/2019 ON
THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-14, AWARDING COMPENSATION
OF RS.2,42,700/- WITH INTEREST AT 7 PERCENT P.A. FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:29595
MFA No. 5420 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 561 of 2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
MFA No.5420/2021 is filed by the claimant for
enhancement of compensation, whereas MFA No.561/2022
is filed by the insurance company by challenging the
liability in award passed by MACT, Bengaluru in MVC
No.2926/2019 dated 02.08.2021 by the XVI Addl. Judge,
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, (for short hereinafter
referred to as 'Tribunal')
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Issuing notice to respondent No.2 is hereby dispensed
with.
3. The appellant in MFA No.5420/2021 was
petitioner and the respondents were respondents before
the Trial Court. MFA No.561/2022 is filed by the
respondent/Insurance company. The status of the parties
before the Tribunal is retained for the sake of convenience.
4. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner
filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (for
NC: 2024:KHC:29595
short 'M.V. Act') claiming compensation of Rs.18 lakhs for
injury sustained by him on road traffic accident dated
01.05.2019. It is alleged that on the said date at 3.30
p.m., when he was riding the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.
KA-05-KK-4961 on Sathanoor pipe line road near Kollari
Narayanappa saw mill, Sathanoor Hobli, Kanakapura
Taluk, Ramanagar, at that time at that time, a private bus
bearing Reg.No.KA-51-A-3139 driven by its driver in rash
and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner, due to
which he has fallen down and sustained grievous injuries.
Immediately he was shifted to Sathanoor Government
Hospital, wherein he took first aid treatment and
thereafter shifted to Kanakapura Government Hospital
later shifted to NIMHANS hospital then Sanjay Gandhi
hospital and took further treatment and was discharged
from the hospital, due to the injury he has sustained
disability. Hence claiming compensation on various heads.
5. The respondent No.2 owner of the vehicle was
placed ex-parte. Respondent No.1/Insurance company
NC: 2024:KHC:29595
appeared through counsel and filed statement of objection
by denying the rash and negligent driving of the accident
in question and the liability. It is also submitted there is
delay in lodging the complaint and the vehicle was falsely
implicated. The claimant was not wearing any helmet and
there is a contributory negligence. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
6. On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed
the following issues for consideration:
"ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that,
he sustained grievous injuries in the nature
of permanent disablement on 01.05.2019
at about 3.30 p.m. on Sathanoor town,
near Pipeline road, Sathanoor Hobli,
Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara, in an
accident arising due to rash and negligent
driving of driver of private bus bearing
Reg.No.KA-51-A-3139?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? whom? If so, how much
and from
3. What Order or Award?"
NC: 2024:KHC:29595
7. On behalf of the climant he himself examine as
PW1 and examined the doctor as PW2 and totally got
marked 15 documents. On behalf of the respondent, the
RTO examined as RW1 and marked at Ex.R1. The
Insurance Company official examined as RW2 and RW3.
After hearing the arguments, the tribunal answered issue
Nos.1 in affirmative and issue No.2 partly in affirmative
and awarded compensation of Rs.2,42,700/- along with
interest, which is challenged by the claimant for
enhancement whereas insurance company filed appeal for
questioning the liability.
8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has
vehemently contended that there is delay three days in
lodging the complaint and as per the records of the
NIMHANS hospital, the petitioner fell down by skidding
from the motorcycle, therefore after taking the three days
consideration and deliberation they were falsely implicated
the bus in order to claim the compensation. Therefore, on
the delay and falsely implicating vehicle, the liability
NC: 2024:KHC:29595
cannot be fixed on the insurance company. Learned
counsel further contended the vehicle is permitted to pass
on the Bangalore but the vehicle had been driven in the
pipeline of Ramanagara, which has no permit to travel on
the said route. Therefore, on this ground there is violation
of permit and the policy, therefore liable liability cannot be
fixed. Learned counsel also contended, the policy itself is
a fake policy and therefore prayed for allowing this appeal
and dismiss claim petition.
9. Per contra learned counsel for the claimant has
supported the fastening the liability on the insurance
company contending that the injured was taken to the
Kanakapura Government Hospital at that time it is
categorically stated the accident occurred due to the
dashing of the bus to the claimant and there was some
mistake committed by the NIMHANS hospital and the
insurance company took the advantage of the same and
further contended there is permit as per the evidence of
RW1 there is no mentioning in the permit therefore the
NC: 2024:KHC:29595
liability is rightly passed to the insurance company by the
tribunal and also contended that the amount of
compensation awarded by the tribunal is very meager and
the income considered is also very meager. Hence,
prayed for enhancing the same.
10. Having heard the arguments, perused the
records, the point that arises for my consideration are,
1. Whether the tribunal is
justified in fastening the liability
on the insurance company?
2. Whether the appellant is
entitled for enhancement of
compensation, if so, what is the
extent?
11. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of
records, which reveals the petitioner said to be traveling in
the motorbike bearing Reg.KA-05-KK-4961 on 01.05.2019
at 03:30 p.m., near Sathanoor pipe line road near Kollari
Narayanappa saw mill, Sathanoor Hobli, Kanakapura
Taluk, at that time the bus bearing Reg. KA-51-A-3139
came from opposite direction and dashed to the claimant.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29595
Immediately he was taken to the hospital at Sathanoor
thereafter shifted to Kanakpura government hospital, then
NIMHANS hospital and later to Sanjay Gandhi hospital.
Of course the complaint was given by the wife of the
claimant, after three days of the accident. The claimant
has stated he was admitted to hospital due to head injury
and other injuries. Therefore was unable to give
complaint, later the wife of the claimant went to the
police station and lodged the complaint by giving the
number of the bus.
12. Learned counsel for the insurer has vehemently
contended the bus has been falsely implicated after the
due deliberation and delay of three days and the certificate
was issued by the NIMHANS hospital reveals by skidding
and falling down by the claimant by himself the injury is
occurred. On perusal of the Ex.P.13, the just of the record
available in the Ex.P13 the certificate or reference letter of
the NIMHANS hospital where it is stated two-wheeler rider
skidded and fallen down. In this regard, counsel for the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29595
claimant has stated it is a wrong entry mentioned by the
hospital authorities by the NIMHANS hospital, whereas at
first point of time he was admitted to the Kanakpura
government hospital where it is clearly mentioned, the
accident occurred due to the dashing of the bus.
Therefore, during the pendency of the appeal, learned
counsel for claimant produced certificate copy of the
accident register extract. The counsel for the insurance
company disputed the document. Therefore, this court
summoned the Accident Register of the Kanakapura
Government Hospital. Accordingly, the clerk of the
Government Hospital Kanakapura by name Prajwal
brought the accident register and produced before the
court this court. This court after verifying in the open
court and it was found there is entry on 1.5.2019, the
injured was taken to the Kanakapura hospital due to the
accident occurred by the bus. This document is the
entered in the register of the Government Hospital
Kanakpura on 1.5.2019 at an undisputed time.
Subsequently, he was shifted to the NIMHANS hospital due
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29595
to head injury, where there was mentioning in the record
of the NIMHANS hospital. Later he was shifted to the
Sanjay Gandhi hospital as impatient where it was clearly
mentioned that the bus was hit to the two-wheeler and
injury sustained. Therefore, the contention of the learned
counsel for the Insurance Company cannot be acceptable
that the bus was falsely implicated by the claimant after
three days of the accident. On the other hand on the at
the undisputed time, it is mentioned the accident register
that the accident was occurred or caused by the bus. Of
course the bus number was not mentioned by the hospital
authorities. But later it was mentioned by the wife of the
claimant.
13. As regards to the another contention raised by
the Insurance Company that the permit is only for
Banglore not to the Kanakpura, in this regard they
examined RW1. The RW1 RTO office also has stated that
the permit was given only to the Bangalore and vehicle
cannot ply to Kanakapura Taluk, Satnur police station
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29595
limit. However, in the cross examination, he has admitted
regarding the route is mentioned in the book maintained
by them in the RTO office and he has not brought the book
and he has orally stated the permit is only for Bangalore.
Therefore, the tribunal has held, when there is no
document produced by the RTO to show the vehicle is
permitted only to ply on the Bangalore and not to
Kanakapura Taluk. Therefore the tribunal rightly fastened
the liability on the insurance company, as there is no
violation of permit. Therefore, I am of the view the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the bus and due to which, the claimant has sustained
injury and there is no violation of any permit or license.
Such being the case, the insurance company is liable to
pay compensation and the finding of the tribunal does not
require for any interference.
14. As regards to the computation of compensation
in the claimants appeal, where the injured sustained
grievous injury of 21% to the whole body. However, the
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29595
tribunal taken only 10%. The income of the claimant was
considered as Rs.10,000 for the accident occurred in 2019,
normally the notional income should be taken Rs.14 000/-
instead of Rs.10,000. However, the injury on he forehead
and he was admitted for 22 days in the hospital and
undergone surgery considering the facts and
circumstances, I propose to take 15% of disability to the
whole body instead of 10%. Accordingly, if Rs.14,000/- is
income 12 x 14 x 15 % = Rs.3,52,800/- is the loss of
future income.
15. The pain and agony tribunal awarded only
Rs.20,000/- which is very less, therefore I propose to
award Rs.50,000/- towards the pain and agony.
16. Medical expenses of Rs.14,640/- awarded is
retained.
17. The loss of laid up charges of is granted for one
month which is not correct for 42 days he was admitted
therefore, at least two months laid up charges should to
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29595
be paid hence Rs.14000 x 2 months = Rs.28000/-
towards loss of laid up charges.
18. The loss of amenities, awarded for
Rs.20,000/- is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-.
19. The food, nourishment etc awarded by the
tribunal is only Rs.10,000 the claimants are from Mandya
district and have taken treatment Sanjay Gandhi hospital,
NIMHANS and various hospital. Therefore, they could
have spent lot of amount towards food, nourishment, and
other charges, therefore I propose to award
Rs.30,000/- for food, nourishment and attendant
charges.
20. The components awarded by this court are as
below,
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29595
Particulars Amount
in Rs.
Pain and suffering 50,000
Loss of future income 3,52,800
Food nourishment 30,000
Medical expenses 14,640
Loss of laid up 28,000
Loss of amenities 30,000
Total 5,05,440
21. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal filed by the insurance company in
MFA No.561/2022 is hereby dismissed.
ii. The appeal filed by the claimant in
MFA No.5420/2021 is allowed in part.
iii. The judgment of the tribunal dated
MVC No.2926/2019 dated 02.08.2021 by the XVI
Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, is
hereby modified.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29595
iv. The claimant is entitled to a total compensation for a
sum of Rs.5,05,440/- instead of Rs.2,42,640/-
granted by the tribunal.
v. The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid by
the respondent-Insurance Company with interest @
6% per annum, within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
vi. The entire award amount is ordered to be released to
the claimant.
vii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court records
to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order
passed by this Court forthwith without any delay;
and
viii. Draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
(K.NATARAJAN)
JUDGE
AKV_List _CT:SK
