Karnataka High Court
Sri D. Lazar vs Sri Mohan on 1 April, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:13543
MFA No. 2738 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 924 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2738 OF 2014 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 924 OF 2014 (MV-I)
IN MFA No. 2738/2014
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
T.P. HUB, REGIONAL OFFICE
LEO COMPLEX
NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.D.LAZAR
S/O S.DHARMALINGAM
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
MEGHA MOHAN R/O NO.10/16/2
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA PARK ROAD MUNINARAYANAPPA GARDENS
JEEVANAHALLI, BHARATHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 005
2. SRI.MOHAN
MAJOR
R/O NO.139, 9TH CROSS, DVG ROAD
CANARA BANK LAYOUT
KODIGEHALLI
BANGALORE-560 097
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1
R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:13543
MFA No. 2738 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 924 of 2014
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:19.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.3394/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, XVIII ADDITIONAL C.M.M, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,44,000/- WITH INTEREST @
6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION EXCEPT
FOR THE AMOUNT OF FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES OF Rs.10,000/-.
IN MFA NO. 924/2014
BETWEEN:
SRI D.LAZAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O LATE DHARMALINGM,
R/AT NO.10/16/2 PARK ROAD,
MUNINARAYANAPPA GARDEN,
JEEVANAHALLI, BHARATHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE- 560 005
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.MOHAN
R/AT NO. 139, 9TH CROSS,
D.V.G ROAD,
CANARA BANK LAYOUT, KODIHALLI,
BANGALORE -560 097
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
T.P HUB, REGIONALOFFICE,
NO.44-45, LEO COMPLEX,
RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS,
M.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE -560 052
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2
R1- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:19.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.3394/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, XVIII ADDL. C.M.M., MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:13543
MFA No. 2738 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 924 of 2014
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.C.No.3394/2012
dated 19.09.2013 by the Member MACT and XX Additional
Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, both the claimant and the
Insurance Company are before this Court. The claimant's
appeal is MFA.No.924/2014 and the Insurance Company's
appeal is MFA.No.2738/2014.
2. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of
an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the
claimant in the road traffic accident. It is the case of the
claimant that on 08.05.2012 at about 5:00 p.m., when the
claimant was riding the Activa Honda on the extreme left side
of Vasantha Nagar 1st Main road, towards Udaya T.V.Junction,
when he reached Kodava Samaja, at that time, the rider of the
motor cycle came from the same direction in high speed and in
a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant's
vehicle from behind. Due to the impact, he fell down and
NC: 2025:KHC:13543
sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to the Zion
Hospital and he underwent operation for the fracture of left
fore-arm, plates and screws were inserted and he spent huge
amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, food and
nourishment. As per the evidence of the doctor, the claimant
had sustained 40% disability to the right upper limb and 14%
to the whole body. Considering the fact that he had already
suffered disability in the previous accident, the disability to the
left upper limb was considered as 18% and disability to the
whole body was taken at 6% and the Tribunal had granted the
compensation as per the table given below:
SL. Heads Compensation
No. Awarded
1. Pain and sufferings : Rs. 20,000/-
2. Attendant charges : Rs. 625/-
Loss of income during
3. : Rs. 750/-
laid up period
Food, diet and :
4. Rs. 1,000/-
nutrition
5. Medical expenses : Rs. 54,000/-
Conveyance and :
6. Rs. 500/-
incidental charges
Loss of discomfort and :
7. Rs. 15,000/-
amenities of life
Loss of future income :
8. Rs. 42,120/-
due to disability
Future medical :
9. Rs. 10,000/-
expenses
TOTAL : Rs. 1,43,995/-
NC: 2025:KHC:13543
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company
submits that they have examined the rider of the offending
vehicle who has deposed that the claimant had fell down as it
was raining on that day. On humanitarian grounds, he had
admitted him in the hospital. It is submitted that when there is
a pillion rider who is his co-brother, the claimant had not
examined him and he has not discharged the burden cast upon
him to show that the accident had taken place because of the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
It is submitted that just because the FIR is registered and the
charge sheet is filed, basing on that the Tribunal cannot come
to the conclusion that the accident had taken place because of
the negligent driving of the rider of the offending vehicle. It is
submitted that the delay of four days in giving the complaint
was also not considered by the Tribunal. It is submitted that
without proving that there is rash and negligent driving on the
part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal had
granted the compensation and the same needs to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits
that the Tribunal had rightly granted the compensation basing
on the evidence. The Tribunal had rightly held that the
NC: 2025:KHC:13543
Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. It is
submitted that when it comes to the compensation, the
Tribunal had not granted just and reasonable compensation.
The accident had happened in the year 2012 and the Tribunal
had taken the income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/- which is on
the lower side. It is submitted that on all counts, the
compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal is not a well
considered one.
5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the entire material on record. First coming to the
liability aspect, there is no dispute about the fact that the
claimant was admitted in the hospital and immediately after the
incident, he was shifted to the hospital and he was taken to the
hospital by the rider of the offending vehicle. According to the
rider of the offending vehicle, he has taken the claimant on
humanitarian grounds and the Police have registered a
complaint after four days from the date of accident. This
particular contention with regard to the delay, the Tribunal had
rightly answered that when the patient was admitted in the
hospital, just because there is a delay on the part of the Police
or on the part of the hospital authorities, the Court cannot
NC: 2025:KHC:13543
fasten the liability and cannot disentitle the claimant from
claiming the compensation. The contention of the Insurance
Company that basing on the IMV Report, there is no damages,
on this aspect also, the Tribunal had rightly given a finding and
this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well considered
order passed by the Tribunal. In view of the same, the Tribunal
had rightly held that the accident had taken place because of
the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the offending
vehicle.
6. Then coming to the compensation, this Court had
perused the compensation that is granted by the Tribunal.
Considering one fracture injury that is sustained by the
claimant, this Court is inclined to grant an amount of
Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering. Considering that he
was in the hospital for 7 days, this Court is granting an amount
of Rs.7,000/- towards attendant charges, food, diet and
nutrition and conveyance and incidental expenses.
Coming to the medical expenses, there is no dispute on that
and the Tribunal had rightly granted an amount of Rs.54,000/-.
The Court had rightly taken 6% as the disability considering the
fact that the claimant had sustained injuries basing on the
NC: 2025:KHC:13543
earlier injuries and coming to the income, considering the fact
that the accident had happened in the year 2012, this Court is
taking the income at Rs.7,000/- per month. For three months,
this Court is granting an amount of Rs.21,000/- (Rs.7,000x3)
towards loss of income during laid up period. Towards loss
of future income due to disability, an amount of
Rs.65,520/- (Rs.7,000x12x13x6/100). Under the head of loss
of discomfort and amenities of life, this Court is granting an
amount of Rs.20,000/-. Towards future medical expenses, the
doctor had deposed that the claimant requires one more
surgery and it would cost around an amount of Rs.15,000/- and
the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.10,000/-. This Court
is granting an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards future
medical expenses.
7. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala vs. M. Malathi and
Another1, the claimant is entitled for an amount of
Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses.
(2014) 11 SCC 178
NC: 2025:KHC:13543
8. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation
under the following heads:
SL. Heads Compensation Compensation
No. Awarded by Awarded by
Tribunal this Court
1. Pain and sufferings : Rs. 20,000/- 40,000/-
2. Attendant charges, : Rs. 2,125/- 7,000/-
Food, diet and
nutrition,
Conveyance and
incidental charges
Loss of income
3. during laid up : Rs. 750/- 21,000/-
period
4. Medical expenses : Rs. 54,000/- 54,000/-
Loss of discomfort :
5. Rs. 15,000/- 20,000/-
and amenities of life
Loss of future :
6. income due to Rs. 42,120/- 65,520/-
disability
Future medical :
7. Rs. 10,000/- 15,000/-
expenses
8. Legal expenses : Rs. 00/- 10,000/-
TOTAL : Rs. 1,43,995/- 2,32,520/-
Enhancement : Rs. 88,525/-
9. Altogether, the claimant is entitled for an amount of
Rs.2,32,520/-.
10. Accordingly, MFA.No.924/2014 filed by the claimant is
partly allowed enhancing the compensation from an amount
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:13543
of Rs.1,44,000/- to Rs.2,32,520/-. The Insurance Company
is liable to pay the compensation.
11. MFA.No.2738/2014 filed by the Insurance Company is
dismissed.
i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization.
ii) The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount
within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit,
the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire
amount without furnishing any security.
iii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records
to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the
order passed by this Court forthwith without any
delay.
iv) No costs.
v) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
MEG
