Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Sri. K. Mallikarjun on 21 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:47264
MFA No. 4964 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4964 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
NO.28, 5TH FLOOR,
CENTENARY BUILDING,
EAST WING, M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. K. MALLIKARJUN,
S/O SRI. SHARANAPPA,
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
AASEEFA PARVEEN
R/AT NO.1-6-210/4,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF NEAR SAIBABA TEMPLE,
KARNATAKA RAILWAY STATION ROAD,
INDIRANAGAR, RAICHUR TOWN,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
2. SOURAM ENTERPRISES,
NO.7, 31ST MAIN, KAS OFFICER,
HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP SOCIETY,
BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 076,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
(R.C.OWNER OF EICHER MOTORS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:47264
MFA No. 4964 of 2023
WATER TANK VEHICLE BEARING
REG.NO.KA-08-3655), (EXPARTE).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JNANESH KUMAR K, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED
11.03.2024)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.04.2023 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 2415/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE AND M.A.C.T., BENGALURU (SCCH-22),
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 12,89,581/- WITH
INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FORM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT WITH THE TRIBUNAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is the outcome of the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru in M.V.C. No.2415/2020 dated 15.04.2023.
2. Heard Sri.D.Vijayakumar learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Sri.Jnanesh Kumar.K learned counsel
for respondent No.1/claimant.
NC: 2024:KHC:47264
3. As against the claim for Rs.25,00,000/- in total,
the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.12,89,581/- as
compensation. Projecting that the sum thus awarded is
exorbitant, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance
Company.
4. Arguing on the merits of the matters,
Sri.D.Vijayakumar learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the tribunal without properly appreciating
the evidence that is brought on record, awarded exorbitant
sum as compensation. Learned counsel stated that
respondent No.1/claimant sustained one grievous injury
only but the tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- under the
head pain and suffering which is highly unjustifiable.
Learned counsel also stated that respondent No.1/claimant
failed to establish in clear terms his occupation and
earnings by the date of accident. But without considering
that part, the tribunal having taken the income as
Rs.25,000/- per month, awarded a sum of Rs.8,56,800/-
NC: 2024:KHC:47264
under the head loss of future income due to permanent
disability.
5. Learned counsel contended that respondent
No.1/claimant indeed was not working anywhere by the
date of accident. Learned counsel further submitted that
the compensation granted by the tribunal under all other
heads is also excessive. Learned counsel thereby sought to
pass necessary orders reducing the sum that is awarded
as compensation.
6. The submission that is made by Sri.Jnanesh
Kumar.K, learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant on
the other hand is that respondent No.1/claimant sustained
a comminution fracture of left leg and underwent surgery.
He was working as cook and was earning Rs.25,000/- per
month by the date of accident. PW-3 clearly deposed that
the disability in respect of left lower limb is 36% and in
respect of whole body is 18%. However, the tribunal took
the disability in respect of whole body as 12% only.
Learned counsel also stated that sufficient material was
NC: 2024:KHC:47264
produced before the tribunal regarding each and every
aspect of the case. However, learned counsel graciously
submitted that PW-2 did not turn up to face cross
examination. Learned counsel also states that the
compensation granted by the tribunal is based on valid
reasons and therefore the appeal is not maintainable.
7. The tribunal through the impugned order awarded
a sum of Rs.12,89,581/- as compensation divided under
following heads:-
Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of future income due to 8,56,800-00
permanent disabilities
Pain and sufferings & Loss 1,00,000-00
of amenities
Food and nourishment and 14,000-00
attendant charges
Medical Expenses 2,28,781-00
Loss of income during Laid 50,000-00
up period
Transportation charges 20,000-00
Future Medical expenses 20,000-00
Total 12,89,581-00
8. Undisputedly, respondent No.1/claimant sustained
type III B Open fracture tibia and segmental fracture and
NC: 2024:KHC:47264
with comminution fracture of left leg and underwent a
surgery. Though PW-3 stated that the disability in respect
of left lower limb is 36% and in respect of whole body is
18%, the tribunal assessed and took the functional
disability as 12% which is justifiable.
9. As per the version of respondent No.1/claimant,
he was working as Cook at Cafe Counter, Paytm Company
and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. To Establish his
occupation and earnings, respondent No.1/claimant
produced the evidence of PW-2 and Ex.P-12-Salary
certificate. However, PW-2 did not turn up to face cross
examination. Respondent No.1/claimant also failed to
establish the genuineness of Ex.P-12-Salary Certificate. No
evidence is on record to show that PW-2 indeed
maintained the said Cafe Counter. Therefore neither the
evidence of PW-2 nor Ex.P-12 can be considered to
ascertain the occupation of respondent No.1/claimant. But
the fact that remains is that the respondent No.1/claimant
sustained a grievous injury in a road traffic accident, took
NC: 2024:KHC:47264
treatment as in patient from 16.01.2020 to 22.01.2020
and again from 08.02.2020 to 14.02.2020. Also it is
brought on record that respondent No.1/claimant was left
with the disability of 12% in respect of whole body.
10. Having considered all these aspects, this Court is
of the view that the justifiable sum which the respondent
No.1/claimant is entitled to under all heads is
Rs.10,00,000/-. However, the tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.12,89,581/- as compensation. Therefore this Court
considers desirable to allow the appeal in part.
Thus, the following:-
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The compensation that is granted by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru through orders
in M.V.C. No.2415/2020 dated 15.04.2023 is reduced
from Rs.12,89,581/- to Rs.10,00,000/-.
NC: 2024:KHC:47264
iii. The award of the tribunal on all other aspects holds
good.
iv. Amount, if any in deposit, be transmitted to the
concerned tribunal immediately.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
VS
CT: BHK
