Karnataka High Court
Sri Vinay Kumar Mishra vs M/S Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd on 5 March, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9221
MFA No. 1998 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1998 OF 2021 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI VINAY KUMAR MISHRA
S/O.SIDHANATH MISHRA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT C/O.ANANDA REDDY
NO.36, WHITEFIELD ROAD
ANJANEYA TEMPLE
SEETHARAMAPALYA
BENGALURU-560 048
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI K.T.GURUDEVA PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S.RELIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE CO.LTD.
MOTOR CLAIMS HUB
NO.28, 5TH FLOOR
CENTENARY BUILDING
EAST WING, NEAR CITI BANK
Digitally M.G.ROAD
signed by B
LAVANYA BENGALURU-560 001
BY ITS MANAGER
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 2. MR.PRATHAP KUMAR K.
KARNATAKA S/O.KRISHNAPPA
BOMANABANDE VILLAGE
KAIGENAHALLI POST
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9221
MFA No. 1998 of 2021
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.06.2020 PASSED IN
MVC.NO.3432/2019 BY XVII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant
challenging the judgment and award dated 10.06.2020
passed in MVC.No.3432/2019 by the Court of XVII
Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member,
MACT, Bengaluru (for short 'the tribunal'). The appeal is
preferred on the premise of inadequate and meager
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 are as under:
On 01.05.2019 at about 9.30 a.m., while the
claimant was crossing the road at Whitefield Road, near
Basavanagar, Bengaluru city, the rider of the motor cycle
bearing registration No.KA-53-EL-2160 came in a rash and
NC: 2024:KHC:9221
negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, as a
result, the claimant sustained injuries. He was
immediately shifted to Hosmat Hospital, where he took
first aid treatment and thereafter shifted to Vydehi
Hospital and thereafter to MTB Orthopaedic Trauma
Hospital, wherein he took treatment for the injuries
sustained.
3.1 It is further stated that prior to the accident, the
claimant was hale and healthy. He was working as security
at SPS production services and earning Rs.30,000/- per
month. Due to the injuries sustained by the claimant, he
filed a claim petition seeking compensation.
3.2 On service of notice, respondent No.2 was placed
ex parte. Respondent No.1 appeared filed detailed written
statement denying the averments made in the claim
petition including age, avocation, income, occurrence of
accident and negligence attributed against the rider of the
NC: 2024:KHC:9221
motor cycle. On these grounds and several grounds urged
therein, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
3.3 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed
relevant issues for consideration.
3.4 In order to substantiate the issue and to
establish the case, the claimant got examined himself as
PW.1 and the Doctor as PW.2 and got marked documents
as Exs.P1 to P16. On the other hand, the respondents
neither examined any witness nor got marked any
documents.
3.5 On the basis of material evidence produced by
the parties, the tribunal awarded total compensation of
Rs.4,66,674/-. However, excluded the future medical
expenses of Rs.25,000/- and awarded Rs.4,41,674/- with
interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its
realisation.
3.6 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation
amount awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before
this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC:9221
4. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel
for appellant-claimant that the tribunal awarded meager
compensation, which calls for interference at the hands of
this Court. Hence, he seeks to enhance the compensation.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-
Insurance Company vehemently contends that the tribunal
has awarded just and reasonable compensation, which
does not call for interference. Hence, he seeks for
dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for appellant-
claimant and respondent-Insurance Company and perused
the impugned judgment and award and evidence adduced
by the parties, point that arises for consideration in this
appeal is:
"Whether the claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation, if so, what
amount?"
7. The occurrence of accident, involvement of vehicle
and injuries sustained by the claimant are established by
NC: 2024:KHC:9221
production of Exs.P1 to P7, the Police records which depict
filing of FIR and laying of chargesheet against the rider of
the motor cycle, which is not disputed or challenged.
Hence, negligence is rightly attributed as against the rider
of the motor cycle. The medical records and salary slips
are produced to show the medical expenditure meted out
and salary drawn by the claimant. Though PW.2-Doctor
has opined the disability at 39% to the right lower limb,
taking into consideration that the claimant, who was
working as a Security, has continued to work in the same
Organisation without there being any reduction in his
salary, the tribunal has not awarded any compensation
towards loss of future earning, which does not call for
interference and the same is sustained.
8. The tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards pain
and suffering. However, this Court deems it appropriate to
award additional amount of Rs.20,000/-. In all,
Rs.60,000/- is awarded under this head.
NC: 2024:KHC:9221
9. The tribunal awarded Rs.2,71,674/- towards
medical expenses, which does not call for interference and
the same is retained.
10. The tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards future
medical expenses. However, this Court deems it
appropriate to award additional amount of Rs.10,000/-. In
all, Rs.35,000/- is awarded under this head.
11. The tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards
conveyance, food, nourishment, attendant charges and
other incidental expenses, which does not call for
interference and the same is retained.
12. The tribunal awarded Rs.95,000/- towards loss of
income during laid-up period, which does not call for
interference and the same is retained.
13. The tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards loss
of amenities. However, this Court deems it appropriate to
award additional amount of Rs.25,000/-. In all,
Rs.50,000/- is awarded under this head.
NC: 2024:KHC:9221
14. In view of the above, the claimant would be
entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,21,674/- as
against Rs.4,66,674/- as mentioned in the table below:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Pain and suffering 60,000-00
Medical expenses 2,71,674-00
Future medical expenses 35,000-00
Conveyance, food and nourishment, 10,000-00
attendant charges and other
incidental expenses
Loss of income during laid up period 95,000-00
Loss of amenities in life/life comforts 50,000-00
and expectancy of life
TOTAL 5,21,674-00
15. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;
ii) The judgment and award dated 10.06.2020
passed in MVC.No.3432/2019 by the Court of
XVII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes
and Member, MACT, Bengaluru, is modified;
iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation
of Rs.5,21,674/- as against Rs.4,66,674/-
awarded by the tribunal;
NC: 2024:KHC:9221
iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be
paid with interest @ 6% p.a. by the
respondent-Insurance Company within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order;
v) The compensation amount shall be released in
favour of the appellant-claimant upon proper
verification;
vi) The original records shall be transmitted to the
jurisdictional tribunal forthwith;
vii) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the
tribunal shall stand intact.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LB
