Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd vs Girish on 1 April, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:13687
MFA No. 411 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 6720 of 2015
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. 411 OF 2016 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6720 OF 2015 (MV-I)
IN MFA No. 411/2016
BETWEEN:
SRI. GIRISH
S/O K.RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
C/O SIDDARAJU BUILDING,
SIDDANAHAHOSAHALLI
BANGALORE NORTH
BANGALORE.
PERMANENT ADDRESS
KALUVARAHALLI, HOSUR POST,
SIRA TALUKA,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101
Digitally signed by ...APPELLANT
MEGHA MOHAN
Location: High
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA M., ADVOCATE FOR
Court Of Karnatka SRI.KALYAN R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
M.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SRI G. BYREGOWDA
S/O B.S.GANGE BYRAPPA,
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT NO. 3, LAKSHMIDEVI NILAYA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:13687
MFA No. 411 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 6720 of 2015
BHUVENESHWARI NAGAR,
HESSARAGHATTA ROAD, T.DASARAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 057
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1
V/O/D 30/11/2017- NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.5130/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, 16TH
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 6720/2015
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX
BANGALORE
BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
NO. 44/45, 4TH FLOOR
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX
RESIDENCY ROAD
BANGALORE-560 025
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GIRISH
S/O K.RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
C/O SIDDARAJU BUILDING
SIDDANAHOSAHALLI
BANGALORE NORTH-560 049
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
KALUVARAHALLI, HOSUR POST,
SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DIST-581 401
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:13687
MFA No. 411 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 6720 of 2015
2. G.BYREGOWDA
S/O B.S. GANGE BYRAPPA
NO. 3, LAKSHMIDEVI NILAYA
BHUVANESHWARINAGAR
HESARGHATTA ROAD
T. DASARAHALLI
BANGALORE-560 057
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAGHAVENDRA M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.KALYAN R., ADVOCATE FOR R1
V/O/D 27/11/2017- SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 H/S)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.07.2015 PASSED
IN MVC NO.5130/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 16TH ADDITIONAL
JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU,
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.2,60,000/- WITH INTEREST @
9% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR 'DISMISSAL', THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order passed in MVC.No.5130/2013
dated 02.07.2015 by the XVI Addl. Judge, Court of Small
Causes, Member MACT, Bengaluru, both the insurance
company as well as the claimant are before this Court. The
insurance company has filed MFA.No.6720/2015 and the
claimant has filed MFA.No.411/2016. The claim petition is filed
seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for the
injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.
NC: 2025:KHC:13687
2. It is the case of the claimant that the claimant was
aged 20 years, working as a courier delivery boy and was
getting monthly income of Rs.8,000/- per month. On
02.09.2013 at about 12.45 p.m., the claimant was standing
near Madanayakanahalli bus stop to cross the other side of NH-
4 Bangalore-Tumkur road to go to Siddanahosahalli, carefully
and cautiously. At that time, scooter ridden by its rider in a
rash and negligent manner with high speed, neglecting all the
traffic rules and regulations came and dashed against the
claimant. Due to the impact, the claimant fell down and
sustained grievous injuries. The insurance company has
resisted the claim. It is the case of the insurance company that
the respondent No.1 has denied the liability to indemnify
respondent No.2 and to compensate the claimant on the
ground that the policy issued in favour of respondent No.2 was
a "Long Term Act Only Policy", that it was valid till expiry of
fitness certificate or till cancellation of the registration
certificate, that the registration certificate/fitness certificate of
the said vehicle was valid till 12.01.2010 and therefore, the
policy is deemed to have been cancelled before the accident
and he is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. In
NC: 2025:KHC:13687
that regard, they have examined RW.1-Sudheendra, the ARTO,
Rajajinagar and RW.2-Anushree, the administrative officer of
respondent No.1 and marked Exs.R1 to 4. The Tribunal had
observed that the policy issued by respondent No.1 is valid till
cancellation of registration and not till expiry of the fitness
certificate. Evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 and contents of Exs.R1 to
4 are not sufficient to hold that the registration certificate of
the scooter was ever cancelled and accordingly, the Tribunal
had granted the compensation and held that the insurance
company is liable to pay the compensation.
3. Basing on the evidence, the Tribunal had granted
the compensation as per the table given below:
Heads Compensation
Awarded
1. Pain and Suffering : Rs. 50,000/-
2. Medical expenses : Rs. 43,000/-
Nourishment,
3. conveyance and : Rs. 10,000/-
attendant charges
Loss of income during :
4. Rs. 18,000/-
laid up period
5. Loss of future income : Rs. 1,04,000/-
6. Loss of amenities : Rs. 25,000/-
7. Future medical expenses : Rs. 10,000/-
TOTAL : Rs. 2,60,000/-
NC: 2025:KHC:13687
4. Altogether the Tribunal had granted compensation
of an amount of Rs.2,60,000/-. Aggrieved thereby the appellant
is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance
company submits that as it is a "Long term act only policy" and
it was valid till expiry of the fitness certificate and in this case,
it was valid till 12.01.2010 as such the insurance company is
not liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel further
submits that even under the heads of compensation also the
amount that was awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side
and the same needs to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits
that when the insurance company is saying that it is a long-
term policy and it was valid till the expiry of the fitness
certificate or till the cancellation of registration certificate. They
have failed to examine the concerned and they have failed to
elicit the same. Learned counsel had relied on the order of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of United India
NC: 2025:KHC:13687
Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Lakshmamma and others 1 wherein
the Court had held that:
"The very contention of the Insurance
Company that merely because of non-
renewal of the R.C. the liability cannot be
fastened on them cannot be accepted. Apart
from that, in the evidence of the Insurance
Company, the witness who has been
examined as R.W.1 also categorically
admitted that registration certificate is not
cancelled. On perusal of Ex.R2 also, it is very
clear that the liability is till the cancellation
of RC and explicit contract between the
insured and the insurer is till the cancellation
of the policy and since no policy is cancelled,
the very contention of the Insurance
Company cannot be accepted".
7. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits
that the Tribunal had rightly held that the Insurance Company
is liable to pay the compensation and in the light of the order
passed in United India Insurance Co. Ltd's case referred
supra, still the Insurance Company is liable to pay the
compensation as there is a valid insurance policy. Then, coming
to the compensation, he submits that the Tribunal ought not to
MFA.No.5702/2016 C/w MFA.No.3621/2016 dated 14.12.2022
NC: 2025:KHC:13687
have taken the income at Rs.6,000/- per month. According to
him, he is earning an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month.
Considering the disability at 8% is also on the lower side.
8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the material on record. In the light of the law laid
down in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. referred
supra, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the
compensation. It is submitted that the Tribunal had granted
interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Accordingly, the same is
reduced to 6% per annum.
9. Coming to the compensation, under the head of
pain and sufferings, considering that the claimant had
sustained one grievous injury and he was in hospital for the
period of seven days, this Court is reducing the same to an
amount of Rs.40,000/-. There is no dispute with regard to the
medical expenses. Towards nourishment, attendant,
conveyance and transport charges, the Tribunal had
granted an amount of Rs.10,000/-. When he was in hospital for
the period of seven days and the same is reduced to
Rs.7,000/-. Coming to the loss of income during laid up
NC: 2025:KHC:13687
period, as this is an accident of the year 2013, as per the chart
prepared by the Legal Services Authority, this Court is inclined
to take the income at an amount of Rs.8,000/- and for 3
months it would come to an amount of
(8,000X3)=Rs.24,000/-. Towards Loss of future income as
the Tribunal had taken the income at amount of Rs.8,000/- per
month. Coming to the disability, according to the doctor, the
disability of the limbs is 24% and 12% to the whole body. The
Tribunal had rightly taken 8%, then the loss of future income
would come to (8000X12X18X8/100)= Rs.1,38,240/-.
Towards loss of amenities, this Court is granting an amount
of Rs.30,000/-. Towards future medical expenses, no
interference is called for.
10. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M. MALATHI
AND ANOTHER2, the claimant is entitled for an amount of
Rs.10,000/- towards Legal Expenses.
11. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the
compensation under the following heads:
(2014) 11 SCC 178
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:13687
Heads Compensation Compensation
Awarded by Awarded by
Tribunal this Court
1. Pain and Suffering : Rs. 50,000/- 40,000/-
2. Medical expenses : Rs. 43,000/- 43,000/-
Nourishment,
3. conveyance and : Rs. 10,000/- 7,000/-
attendant charges
Loss of income :
4. Rs. 18,000/- 24,000/-
during laid up period
5. Loss of future income : Rs. 1,04,000/- 1,38,240/-
6. Loss of amenities : Rs. 25,000/- 30,000/-
Future medical :
7. Rs. 10,000/- 10,000/-
expenses
8. Legal expenses : Rs. - 10,000/-
TOTAL : Rs. 2,60,000/- 3,02,240/-
Enhanced
: Rs. Rs.42,240/-
compensation
All together, the claimant is entitled for compensation of
an amount of Rs.3,02,240/-.
Accordingly, MFA.No.411/2016 filed by the claimant is
Allowed-in-part by enhancing the compensation from an
amount of Rs.2,60,000/- to Rs.3,02,240/-. The compensation
amount shall be paid by the insurance company.
Accordingly, MFA.No.6720/2015 filed by the insurance
company is Allowed-in-part by reducing the interest from the
rate of 9% to 6% per annum.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:13687
i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at
6% per annum from the date of petition till
the date of realization.
ii) The amount in deposit shall be forthwith
transferred to the Tribunal.
iii) 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.
iv) 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.
v) No costs.
vi) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
Sd/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
BN
