Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Kavya on 13 November, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46060
MFA No. 8287 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 5237 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8287 OF 2019
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5237 OF 2019
(MV-I)
IN MFA No. 8287/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. KAVYA, W/O PRASHANTH,
NOW AGED AOBUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT VENKATARAMANASWAMY TEMPLE STREET,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI,
NOW RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS,
MARUTHI NAGARA, TUMAKURU CITY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by KIRAN AND:
KUMAR R
Location: HIGH 1. MANJUNATHA S G
COURT OF S/O GANGADHARAIAH,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
R/AT MUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE & POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572214.
2. THE MANAGER
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NO.89, S.V.R. COMPLEX,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46060
MFA No. 8287 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 5237 of 2019
2ND FLOOR, MADIVALA
(NEAR AYYAPPA TEMPLE)
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560068.
BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
VIDE ORDER DATED:26.09.2022, NOTICE TO R-1 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.02.2019
PASSED IN MVC NO.715/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 5237/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGER
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD,
NO.89, SVR COMPLEX,
2ND FLOOR, MADIVALA,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGLAURU
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD,
NO.121, THE ESTATE, 9TH FLOOR,
DICKENSON ROAD, M.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 042.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:46060
MFA No. 8287 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 5237 of 2019
AND:
1. KAVYA
W/O PRASHANTH,
NOW AGED ABOUT 27 YEAWRS
R/O VENKATARAMANASWAMY TEMPLE STREET,
CHIKKA NAYAKANAHALLI
NOW R/AT 2ND CROSS,
MARUTHI NAGARA, TUMKUR CITY.
2. MANJUNATH S.G.,
S/O GANGADHARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O MUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE AT POST,
KASABA HOBI,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
TUMKURU DIST-572218
(OWNER OF BIKE REG NO
KA-44-S-7736)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.GOPAL KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
VIDE ORDER DATED:30.10.2024 NOTICE TO R-2 IS
DISPENSED WITH IN MFA.No.8287/2019)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 18.02.2019
PASSED IN MVC NO.715/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,36,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT 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
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:46060
MFA No. 8287 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 5237 of 2019
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The insurer as well as the claimant are in appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the insurer contends that the finding
of the Tribunal that the accident did occur cannot be
sustained. He submits that the accident occurred on
02.02.2017 and the complaint was lodged nearly five
days thereafter and this, by itself, indicated that the
theory of an accident was set up only to enable the filing
of a claim petition. He also highlights the fact that in the
MLC register of Tumkur District Hospital different vehicle
number has been mentioned and this also indicates that
the vehicle that it had insured was not actually involved in
the accident.
3. It is to be stated here that the owner of the vehicle did
enter appearance and file his objections. He, however, did
not deny specifically that his vehicle was involved in the
accident, and merely stated that a false case has been
registered against him. In my view, since the owner of
the vehicle did not specifically dispute the occurrence of
NC: 2024:KHC:46060
the accident, an inference has to be drawn that the
vehicle was involved in the accident.
4. As far as mentioning of a different vehicle number in the
MLC register of the Tumkur District Hospital is concerned,
the insurer, in order to establish that the claimant had
informed the Doctor about the involvement of some other
vehicle, it necessarily had to secure the presence of the
Doctor and elicit from him that the number recorded in
the MLC register was given by the claimant. In the
absence of such an exercise undertaken by the insurer,
the mere assertion of the insurer that the vehicle that it
had insured has been implicated cannot be accepted.
5. It is also to be noticed here that immediately after the
accident the claimant did go to the hospital and therefore,
it is the duty of the hospital to inform the police about the
occurrence of the accident. Consequently, the delay in
lodging the complaint would also have to be ignored.
6. The Tribunal has assessed the disability of the claimant at
8%. In light of the medical evidence by the Doctor who
treated the claimant, the Tribunal ought to have assessed
the disability at 12% to the whole body.
NC: 2024:KHC:46060
7. The Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the
claimant at Rs.8,000/- since there was no actual proof of
income. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to
adopt the notional income determined by the Karnataka
State Legal Services Authority, which, for the accident of
the year 2017, would be Rs.11,000/-. Consequently, the
claimant would be entitled to Rs.2,69,200/- (Rs.11,000/-
X 12 X 17 X 12%) towards loss of future earnings.
8. Since the claimant has suffered 12% disability, it would
be appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- as against
Rs.24,000/- towards pain and suffering, and Rs.40,000/-
as against Rs.15,000/- awarded towards loss of
amenities.
9. The amounts of Rs.82,200/- awarded towards medical
expenses, Rs.30,000/- awarded towards food,
nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges, and
Rs.30,000/- towards future medical expenses, being just
and proper, are affirmed.
10. Since the notional income is now assessed at Rs.11,000/-
the claimant would be entitled to Rs.33,000/- towards
loss of income during laid up period for three months.
NC: 2024:KHC:46060
11. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and
the following sums are awarded as compensation:
As As
awarded awarded
Sl. Compensation
by the by this
No. under different
Tribunal Court
Heads
(Rs.) (Rs.)
1. Pain and sufferings 24,000 50,000
2. Loss of future earnings 1,30,560 2,69,280
3. Medical expenses 82,200 82,200
Loss of income during 24,000 33,000
4.
the laid up period
Conveyance, 30,000 30,000
nourishment and
5.
nutritious food and
attendant charges
Loss of amenities in 15,000 40,000
6.
life
Future medical 30,000 30,000
7.
expenses
Total 3,36,000 5,34,480
12. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled for
compensation of Rs.5,34,480/- as against Rs.3,36,000/-
NC: 2024:KHC:46060
along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till its realisation.
13. 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.
14. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the
Tribunal.
15. The disbursement of compensation amount shall be in
terms of the award of the Tribunal.
16. The appeal of the insurer is dismissed, and the appeal of
the claimant is accordingly allowed in part.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
