Karnataka High Court

Sri Bettaswamy vs Sri Gangaiah on 5 November, 2024

Author: N S Sanjay Gowda

Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda

                                              -1-
                                                              NC: 2024:KHC:44400
                                                            MFA No. 395 of 2019
                                                       C/W MFA No. 3444 of 2018




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                          DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
                                            BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
                                  MFA NO. 395 OF 2019 C/W
                                 MFA NO. 3444 OF 2018 (MV-I)

                   IN MFA No. 395/2019

                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI BETTASWAMY
                   S/O GANGAIAH
                   NOW AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
                   R/AT AREPALYA VILLAGE
                   KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK
                   TUMKUR DISTRICT                              ...APPELLANT

                   (BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADV.)

                   AND:

                   1.     SRI GANGAIAH
                          S/O BETTAIAH
                          MAJOR IN AGE
Digitally signed
by KIRAN                  AREPALYA VILLAGE
KUMAR R                   KASABA HOBLI
Location: HIGH            KUNIGAL TALUK
COURT OF                  TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130
KARNATAKA

                   2.     ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
                          INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
                          1ST FLOOR, ABHARANA ARCADE
                          M G ROAD, TUMKUR - 572 101
                          REP BY ITS MANAGER                 ...RESPONDENTS

                   (BY SRI.RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADV. FOR R2;
                       VIDE ORDER DATED 10.03.2020,
                       NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
                            -2-
                                           NC: 2024:KHC:44400
                                         MFA No. 395 of 2019
                                    C/W MFA No. 3444 of 2018




     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03/02/2018,
PASSED IN MVC NO.2735/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE X
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MACT,
BENGALURU (SCCH-16), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.

IN MFA NO. 3444/2018

BETWEEN:

M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL
INSURANCE CO LTD., (FORMERLY
KNOWN AS ROYAL SUNDARAM
ALLIANCE INUSRANCE CO. LTD.
1ST FLOOR, ABHARANA ARCADE
M.G. ROAD, TUMKUR - 572101
REP. BY REGIONAL OFFICE
NO.30, 3RD FLOOR, JNR CITY CENTRE
RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD
SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 027
BY ITS STATE HEAD LEGAL
MR. S.K. SANDEEP                             ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI., ADV.)

AND:

1.     SRI BETTASWAMY
       S/O. GANGAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
       R/O. AREPALYA VILLAGE
       KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 114

2.     SRI. GANGAIAH
       S/O. BETTAIAH
       MAJOR IN AGE
       R/O. AREPALYA VILLAGE
       KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 114
                                          ..RESPONDENTS
                              -3-
                                              NC: 2024:KHC:44400
                                            MFA No. 395 of 2019
                                       C/W MFA No. 3444 of 2018




(BY SRI.N.GOPAL KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R1;
    R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.02.2018
PASSED IN MVC NO.2735/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE X
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU, (SCCH-16),     AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.14,32,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

     THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

                     ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The insurer is in appeal challenging the award of

Rs.14,31,630/- granted to the claimant for the injuries

suffered by him in an accident which was stated to have

occurred on 07.01.2016.

2. The claimant is also in appeal seeking enhancement.

3. It is the case of the insurer that this was a clear case

of implication of the tractor only to secure compensation

for the injuries suffered by the claimant.

4. Learned counsel for the insurer contends that the

wound certificate at Ex.P-5 merely states that the claimant

NC: 2024:KHC:44400

was brought to the hospital with a history of road traffic

accident by a tractor. He submits that since it is the

admitted case of the claimant that the tractor was owned

by his father and was being driven by his brother and

under normal circumstances, the brother who took him to

the hospital ought to have mentioned the tractor number.

It is contended that since the tractor number has not been

mentioned, the entire involvement of the tractor owned by

the claimants will be in serious doubt. He also submits a

fact that an FIR was registered on the following day and

that there was a discrepancy in the manner of occurrence

of the accident. In my view, this argument cannot be

accepted.

5. As could be seen from the wound certificate Ex.P-5,

which was recorded immediately after the accident, there

is a clear mention about the claimant being brought to the

hospital with a history of road traffic accident.

6. It is to be noticed here that if the claimant had

suffered an injury as a result of the use of the tractor

NC: 2024:KHC:44400

owned by his father which was incidentally driven by his

brother, the question of naming the tractor would not by

itself be of any significance. It was the intention of the

claimants to manipulate the records and create the story

of an accident, they would not have indicated that it was a

road traffic accident by a tractor and, therefore, I am of

the view that the mere non-mentioning of the position of

the tractor will not lead to the inference that the accident

did occur in the manner stated by the claimant.

7. It may also be noticed here that the claimant has

suffered a serious crush injury in his left foot, which has

ultimately resulted in his amputation of the left foot above

the right knee. So, in such a situation where the claimant

has suffered a serious crush injury, the non-mentioning of

the registration number of the tractor by the claimant or

by his brother would be really of no significance at all. I

find no reason to entertain the appeal of the insurer and

the appeal is therefore dismissed.

NC: 2024:KHC:44400

8. As far as the enhancement of compensation is

concerned, the Tribunal has accepted the disability of the

claimant at 70% as opined by the doctor. In my view, this

assessment of disability at 70% to the whole body cannot

be found fault with and is, therefore, maintained.

9. However, the Tribunal has taken the notional income

of the claimant as Rs.8,000/-, since there was no evidence

to that effect. As the Karnataka State Legal Services

Authority has determined the notional income as

Rs.9,500/- for the accident of the year 2016, it would be

appropriate to determine the notional income of the

claimant at Rs.9,500/-.

10. Since the claimant was aged 28 years and the

disability suffered is at 70%, 40% is to be added towards

future prospects to determine monthly income of the

claimant for awarding compensation towards 'loss of

future income' which comes to Rs.13,300/-.

NC: 2024:KHC:44400

11. Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a

sum of Rs.18,99,240/- (Rs.13,300/- X 12 X '17' X 70%)

towards 'loss of future income.

12. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/-

towards 'pain and suffering' and Rs.25,000/- towards 'loss

of amenities in life'. In my view, it would be appropriate

to enhance the same to Rs.1,00,000/- each under said

heads, having regard to the fact that the amputation is

above the right knee.

13. The Tribunal has award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards

'attendant charges, nutritious food and conveyance

expenses' which should have been marginally increased to

Rs.10,000/-. Since the income is enhanced from

Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9,500/-, the claimant is entitled to

Rs.28,500/- (Rs.9,500/- x 3 months) under the head 'loss

of income during laid-up period'.

14. As regards Rs.1,75,230/- awarded towards medical

expenses, the same is based on documentary evidence, in

NC: 2024:KHC:44400

my view, the same is just and proper and is accordingly

affirmed.

15. Since the claimant has suffered an amputation above

the right knee, it would also be appropriate to award

Rs.50,000/- for securing an artificial limb.

16. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified

and the following sums are awarded as compensation:

                              As awarded          As awarded
  Sl.                           by the            by this Court
            Compensation       Tribunal
  No.       under different                           (Rs.)
                Heads               (Rs.)

         Pain and                   60,000/-         1,00,000/-
   1.
         sufferings

         Loss of future        11,42,400/-         18,99,240/-
   2.
         earnings

   3.    Medical expenses       1,75,230/-           1,75,230/-

         Loss of income             24,000/-           28,500/-
   4.    during the laid up
         period

         Conveyance,                 5,000/-           10,000/-
   5.    nourishment and
         nutritious food

         Loss of amenities          25,000/-         1,00,000/-
   6.
         in life

                                                           NC: 2024:KHC:44400






   7.     Artificial Limb                 Nil                  50,000/-

                 Total              14,31,630/- 23,62,970/-



17.     Accordingly,     the   claimant         is   held     entitled     to

compensation       of Rs.23,63,000/- (rounded off) as

against Rs.14,32,000/- (rounded off) along with interest at

the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date

of petition till its realisation.

18. However, the claimant would not be entitled to

interest on the delayed period, as per order dated

25.08.2021.

19. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

amount of compensation awarded within two months from

the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

20. Upon deposit, Rs.12,00,000/- shall be invested in a

fixed deposit for a period of Ten years in the name of

claimant in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank of the