Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager Shri Ram Gic Ltd vs G S Ashok on 9 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36644
MFA No. 7497 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 7496 of 2013
MFA No. 7498 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7497 OF 2013 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7496 OF 2013 (MV-I)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7498 OF 2013 (MV-I)
IN MFA No. 7497/2013
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SHRI RAM GIC LTD.
B.H.ROAD, SHIMOGA,
NOW REP BY THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
3RD FLOOR, S AND S CORNER BUILDING,
OPP. BOWRING AND LADY CURZON HOSPITAL,
BANGALORE - 01.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. G.S. ASHOK,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O R.SIDDOJI RAO
R/A GUDDEDIMBA,
Digitally signed by
PRAJWAL A SAGARA TALUK - 577 401.
2. OMKESH MOORTY,
Location: HIGH COURT AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OF KARNATAKA
S/O KRISHNANAIKA,
R/A HIREJENI VILLAGE,
HOSANAGARA TALUK - 577 418.
3. PRASHANTH KUMAR, MAJOR,
BRAHMANAND MOORTHY,
R/A HOUSE NO.113,
GANGANAKOPPA VILLAGE,NAGARA ROAD,
HOSANAGARA - 577 418.
...RESPONDENTS
(VIDE ORDER DATED 03.04.2017 SERVICE TO
NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 HELD SUFFICIENT,
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36644
MFA No. 7497 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 7496 of 2013
MFA No. 7498 of 2013
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.301/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND
JMFC, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, SAGAR, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,41,340/- WITH INTEREST @ 9%
P.A.(EXCLUDING Rs.25,000/- AWARDED TOWARDS FUTURE
MEDICAL EXPENSES) FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION AND ETC.
IN MFA NO. 7496/2013
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER SHRI RAM GIC LTD.
B.H.ROAD, SHIMOGA,
NOW REP BY THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
3RD FLOOR, S AND S CORNER BUILDING,
OPP. BOWRING AND
LADY CURZON HOSPITAL,
BANGALORE - 01.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. H.N.MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O NARAYANA,
R/A GALIPURA,
SAGARA TALUK - 577 401.
2. OMKESH MOORTY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O KRISHNANAIKA,
R/A HIREJENI VILLAGE,
HOSANAGARA TALUK - 577 418.
3. PRASHANTH KUMAR, MAJOR,
BRAHMANAND MOORTHY,
R/A HOUSE NO. 113,
GANGANAKOPPA VILLAGE, NAGARA ROAD,
HOSANAGARA - 577 418.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRI BIMBADHAR M GOWDAR ,ADVOCATE R1
R2 SERVED UNREPRESENTED, VIDE ORDER DATED
03.04.2017 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT IN NOS.R1 AND R3
VIDE ORDER DATED 06.11.2019 APPEAL IS ADMITTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED05.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.301/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND
JMFC, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, SAGAR, AWARDING
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:36644
MFA No. 7497 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 7496 of 2013
MFA No. 7498 of 2013
COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,41,340/- WITH INTEREST @ 9%
P.A.(EXCLUDING Rs.25,000/- AWARDED TOWARDS FUTURE
MEDICAL EXPENSES) FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION AND ETC.
IN MFA NO. 7498/2013
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SHRI RAM GIC LTD.,
B.H.ROAD, SHIMOGA,
NOW REP BY THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INS.CO.LTD.,
3RD FLOOR, S AND S CORNER BUILDING,
OPP. BOWRING AND LADY CURZON HOSPITAL,
BANGALORE - 01.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP B.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ARUN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
S/O R.SIDDOJI RAO,
R/A GUDDEDIMBA,
SAGARA TALUK - 577 401.
2. OMKESH MOORTHY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O KRISHNANAIKA,
R/A HIREJENI VILLAGE,
HOSANAGARA TALUK - 577 418.
3. PRASHANTH KUMAR, MAJOR,
BRAHMANAND MOORTHY,
R/A HOUSE NO.113,
GANGANAKOPPA VILLAGE, NAGARA ROAD,
HOSANAGARA - 577 418.
...RESPONDENTS
(VIDE ORDER DATED 03.04.2017 SERVICE TO
NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 HELD SUFFICIENT, R2 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED05.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.301/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND
JMFC, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, SAGAR, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,41,340/- WITH INTEREST @ 9%
P.A.(EXCLUDING Rs.25,000/- AWARDED TOWARDS FUTURE
MEDICAL EXPENSES) FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:36644
MFA No. 7497 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 7496 of 2013
MFA No. 7498 of 2013
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
In these appeals, the Insurance Company is
challenging the accident, the quantum of compensation
and also the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the
parties shall be referred to as per their status before
the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 25.11.2009 at
about 7.30 p.m., all the three petitioners were
standing near the bus stop on Thyagarthi Cross,
Gowthampura, within the limits of Sagara Taluk. Lorry
bearing Registration No.KA-20/4528, which was
passing near the bus stop, all of a sudden its left rear
wheel was burst, due to which an iron ring came out of
the wheel and hit against the petitioners, due to which
they sustained injuries. After taking treatment at
Government Hospital, Anandapuram, they were
NC: 2024:KHC:36644
treated under hospitalization at K.M.C. Hospital,
Manipal. After taking treatment, the injured Ashoka
filed a complaint to the Sagara Rural Police station and
put the law into motion. The remaining petitioners
after taking treatment approached the Tribunal for
grant of compensation. The driver and the owner of
the Lorry remained ex-parte. Insurance Company has
contested the claim. The Tribunal recorded the
common evidence in all the three cases, after hearing
the parties, allowed the claim petitions and directed
the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.
Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company is
before this Court.
4. Heard the argument of Sri. Pradeep B., learned
counsel for the Insurance Company, Sri.Bimbadhar M
Gowdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
MVC No.310/2011.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company that the accident said to have
NC: 2024:KHC:36644
taken place at 7.30 p.m. on 25.11.2009, the
petitioners were treated at Government Hospital,
Anandapuram and at K.M.C. Hospital, Manipal. No MLC
intimation was sent to the Police. The Wound
Certificate of all the petitioners goes to show that the
history of the petitioners as tire blast while changing
the tire of the heavy vehicle on 25.11.2009. They did
not divulge the nature of the vehicle or the vehicle
number. The complaint was filed by the injured
petitioner-Ashoka only on 30.11.2009 after 6 days of
the accident. There is no explanation for the delayed
complaint. The petitioner did not produce a copy of the
complaint and the IMV report to explain the tire blast
as contended by them, even the spot Mahazar did not
point out any indication that at the place of accident,
there was any sign of a tire blast. If there was a tire
blast they could have been a sign of scratches on the
road. But no such sign has occurred. All these go to
explain that there was no accident as pleaded by the
petitioners and the Tribunal erroneously accepted the
NC: 2024:KHC:36644
evidence, awarded compensation on the higher side,
interest at 9% is awarded without any cogent reason
and the sought for dismissal of claim petition.
6. Per contra learned counsel for the petitioner-
Manjunath has contended that in the case of tire blast
there is no question of any sign or mark being noticed
at the place of accident and the Investigating Officer
has rightly noted the same. All the three injured
petitioners were under hospitalization at K.M.C.
Hospital, Manipal, they informed the occurrence of the
accident to the Manipal Hospital. They were of the
opinion that the hospital would send the intimation to
the Police. The injured Ashoka was discharged on
30.11.2009, came to know that the Police intimation
was not sent and therefore, he went to the Sagara
Rural Police Station and files his written complaint.
The petitioners were under hospitalization, there is no
occasion for them to go to the Police Station and to
report the complaint. The information furnished by the
NC: 2024:KHC:36644
injured persons to the K.M.C. Hospital is recorded in
the Wound Certificate. Little variation in recording the
history will not create any doubt that the accident is
fake.
6.1. It is also contended that the owner and the
driver of the vehicle have not entered the appearance,
no contrary evidence is placed on record. Even on
behalf of the Insurance Company no evidence is let in
except the officer, who was not the eyewitness to the
accident. The petitioners who are the eyewitnesses and
sufferers of the accident, have under went test of
Cross-examination. The Tribunal rightly appreciated
the evidence and awarded the compensation.
According to him, the compensation awarded is on the
lower side and sought for enhancement.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on behalf of both sides and also
perused the materials on record.
NC: 2024:KHC:36644
8. It is the specific case of the petitioners that, on
25.11.2009 at 7.30 p.m., while they were waiting for
the bus near the bus stop, the Lorry in question passed
through and all of a sudden the left rear wheel of the
Lorry burst, due to which the locking ring of the wheel
came out and hit on them, due to which they sustained
the injuries. They were treated at Government
Hospital, Anandapuram, no records have placed that
they have been treated there intimating alleged
accident. On 26.11.2009 at 3.30 p.m., all the three
injured persons were taken to the K.M.C. Hospital,
Manipal, where they furnished the history of the
accident on the previous night and that due to the tire
blast they sustained the injuries.
9. The argument of the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company that while changing the tire, the
wheel has blasted is the information furnished.
Whether the tire was blast while the Lorry was moving
or it was at the time of changing the tire makes any
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36644
difference. The Insurance Company has not produced
any evidence to show that the accident proposed by
the petitioners was not possible. The Medical Officers
who have treated the injured persons have been
examined before the Tribunal, during the course of
their cross-examination nothing has been suggested to
come that the injuries sustained by the petitioners
were not possible in a case of tire blast. Under such
circumstances, the totality of the evidence has to be
taken into consideration and the petitioners being the
injured eyewitnesses who have specifically asserted
the manner in which the accident was occurred. It is
not the case of the Insurance Company that at the
time of accident the Lorry in question was not plied at
the place of accident. The comulitive effect of the
evidence point out that there was an accident at 7.30
p.m. on 25.11.2009 due to the tire blast and the
petitioners sustained the injuries.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36644
10. As regarding quantum of compensation the
petitioner-Manjunath suffered fracture of Left femur,
petitioner-Ashoka suffered fracture of clavicle,
petitioner-Arun suffered closed head injury. They were
treated under hospitalization. The Tribunal considered
the medical evidence let in on behalf of the petitioner
through PW-4/Dr.Kiran K V Acharya and PW-
6/Dr.Shamsundar Bhat N., both are from K.M.C.
Hospital, Manipal. Their evidence clearly point out the
nature of injuries causing 5%, 8% and 6% of the
whole body disability suffered by the respective
petitioners. The Tribunal considering the medical
expenses and hospitalization probable money spent
towards treatment, has rightly assessed the
compensation in respect of petitioner-Manjunatha at
Rs.1,68,800/-(MVC No.310/2011), regarding injured
petitioner-Ashoka at Rs.1,41,340/-(MVC No.301/2011)
and petitioner-Arun at Rs.1,03,380/-(MVC
No.307/2011). The accident of the year 2011, the
petitioners are the coolies and the compensation
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36644
awarded is proportionate to the nature of the injuries.
The Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation,
which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case.
11. As regarding rate of interest is concerned, the
Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum. The
Tribunal did not offer any explanation for awarding
higher rate of interest except referring to the judgment
in Smt. Supe Dei and others vs. National
Insurance Company Limited and another 1. In a
case of this nature, interest at higher rate can be
award, there is any special reasons to be recorded in
the absence of any special reasons to be recorded,
awarding of higher rate of interest is on the higher
side.
12. The Division Bench of this court in
Ms.Joyeeta Bose and Others vs Venkateshan.V.
and Others in M.F.A NO.5859/2018 c/w
(2009) 4 SCC 513
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36644
M.F.A.Nos.4444/2018 and 4659/2018 (MV) DD
24.08.2020 with reference to Section 149(1) of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, Rule 253 of Karnataka Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Section 34 of Civil Procedure
Code, at Para 52 has laid down principles regarding
award of interest, it reads thus:
"52. Thus, under Section 34 of CPC being
squarely applicable to the interest awarded by
the tribunal and Section 34 empowering the
tribunal to award pendente lite interest and
discretion being vested with the Court/Tribunal
to award interest from the date of suit or petition
is to the maximum extent of 6% p.a. or in other
words, not exceeding 6% p.a., the contention
raised by the learned Advocates appearing for
the Insurance Company deserves to be accepted
and accordingly, it is accepted. . . . . . . . . . . ."
The Tribunal has not assigned any reason for awarding
higher rate of interest. Under such circumstances,
interest at the rate of 9% per annum is not justified
and it shall be 6% per annum.
13. In view of the above discussions, the appeals
merits considerations, in the result, the following:
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36644
ORDER
i) All the three appeals are allowed-in-
part;
ii) The judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal in granting compensation
to the respective petitioners is hereby
confirmed;
iii) The petitioners are entitled to the
compensation with interest at 6% per
annum, from the date of petition till
the date of deposit;
iv) The Insurance Company shall deposit
the compensation with interest within
8 weeks from receipt of certified copy
of the judgment;
v) Amount in deposit shall be transmitted
to the Tribunal along with records.
SD/-
(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA)
JUDGE
BKN
