Karnataka High Court
The Reliance General vs Vinayak And Anr on 19 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724
MFA No. 202081 of 2018
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202081 OF 2018 (MV-I)
C/W.
MFA CROSS OBJ NO.200017 OF 2019 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO.202081/2018:
BETWEEN:
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, VIJETHA SANGEEVANI,
H.NO.6-4-8, OPP: GANDI HOSPITAL, MUSHEERABAD,
HYDERABAD, A.P.,
THROUGH ITS OFFICE AT ASIAN PLAZA,
NEAR S.V. PATEL CHOWK, KALABURAGI.
Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA ...APPELLANT
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. VINAYAK S/O ASHOK KARACHAN,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL,
R/O RAILWAY QUARTER, RB-3, 'B' BLOCK,
ROOM NO.3, KALABURAGI-585 102.
2. AGNEL MARTIN S/O SABASTIN MARTIN,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF INNOVA
NO.AP-9/TVA-2242, R/O NO.8-2-6038/34/C,
MARTIN VILLA, ZAHEERABAD NAGAR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724
MFA No. 202081 of 2018
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019
ROAD NO.10, BANJARA HILLS,
HYDERABAD-500 034(AP).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADV. FOR R1;
V/O DTD. 15.02.2024, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE
APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.04.2018, PASSED THE I
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KALABURAGI IN MVC
NO.03/2015.
IN MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO.200017/2019:
BETWEEN:
VINAYAK S/O ASHOK KARACHAN,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL, AFTER ACCIDENT,
R/O RAILWAY QUARTERS, RB-3, B-BLOCK,
ROOM NO.3, KALABURAGI.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. AGNEL MARTIN S/O SABASTIN MARTIN,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TOYOTA
INNOVA NO.AP-09/TVA-2242,
R/O NO.8-2-603B/34/C, MARTIN VILL,
ZAHEERA NAGAR, ROAD NO.10, BANJARA HILLS,
HYDERABAD-500 034 (AP).
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724
MFA No. 202081 of 2018
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019
2. THE MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
H.NO.6-4-8, OPP: GANDI HOSPITAL,
MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD-2, (AP),
THROUGH ITS OFFICE, AT ASIAN PLAZA,
NEAR S.V. PATEL CHOWK,
KALABURAGI-585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADV. FOR R2;
V/O DTD. 15.02.2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF
CPC ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 11.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.3/2015 BY THE I ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT KALABURAGI. AND
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FORM RS.5,22,000/- WITH
6% INTEREST TO RS.14,99,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
By consent of the learned counsel for both the parties,
these matters are taken up for Final Disposal even though they
are slated for Admission and heard the learned counsels for
both the parties.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
11.04.2018 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019
Judge and Member, MACT, Kalaburagi, in MVC No.03/2015,
respondent No.2-Insurance Company is before this Court in
MFA No. 202081/2018 and the petitioner is before this Court in
MFA CROB 200017/2019.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be
referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.
4. The factual matrix of the case is that on 15.12.2013
at about 1.00 p.m., the petitioner was riding his motor cycle
bearing No.KA.32.ED.9561 along with pillion rider and while he
was near Kesaratagi Garden, Gulbarga, a Toyota Innova car
bearing No.AP.09.TVA.2242 came from the opposite side and
dashed to the motor cycle of the petitioner. As a result,
petitioner sustained fracture of shaft of the right femur,
fracture of right hand, grievous injuries to thigh, shoulder etc.,
Pillion rider had also sustained injuries. The petitioner was
admitted to the hospital where he underwent surgeries. A case
was registered by the jurisdictional police in Crime
No.422/2013 and ultimately, a chargesheet was laid against
the driver of Innova car. Claiming that the petitioner was aged
22 years at the time of accident earning Rs.15,000/- per month
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019
as an Electrician and he having suffered permanent disability
for having sustained fracture claimed adequate compensation
at the hands of the Tribunal.
5. The petition was opposed by respondent No.2-
Insurance Company contending that there was no such
negligence on the part of the driver of the innova car, but the
negligence was on the part of the petitioner. It was also alleged
that the petitioner as well as the driver of Innova car were not
having a valid driving licence and therefore, the petition is not
maintainable. It was also contended that the terms and
conditions of the policy were violated and the compensation
claimed by the petitioner is highly exorbitant, imaginary etc.
6. After framing appropriate issues by the Tribunal,
evidence was let in and petitioner examined himself as PW1
and the Doctor who assessed the disability was examined as
PW2. Exhibits P1 to P15 were marked. Respondent No.2
examined its official as RW1 and copy of the policy was marked
as Exhibit R1.
7. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal has awarded
compensation of Rs.5,21,800/- under the following heads:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019
Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/-
Medical expenses Rs. 1,81,000/-
Attendant, conveyance charges and Rs. 8,400/-
nutrition of food etc.
Loss of future income Rs. 3,02,400/-
Total Rs. 5,21,800/-
8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award,
the Insurance Company has approached this Court in MFA
No.202081/2018 and the petitioner has approached this Court
in MFA CROB No. 200017/2019.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri
Babu H. Metagudda, submits that the assessment of
compensation by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He contends
that except the medical expenses, the compensation awarded
under all other remaining heads is on the lower side and the
Tribunal failed to compensate the petitioner under the head of
loss of amenities in life and loss of income during the laid up
period.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has not
considered the fact that the accident took place in the middle of
the road and the sketch at Exhibit P3 shows that the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019
motorcycle was being ridden at the centre of the road
indicating a contributory negligence by the petitioner. It is
contended that the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitor is applicable
and therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in
law. Inter alia it is submitted that the driving licence of the
innova car driver was not placed on record before the Tribunal.
11. A careful perusal of the records go to show that the
charge-sheet filed by the concerned police at Ex.P3 indicts the
driver of the Innova Car for committing the offence under
Sections 279, 338 of IPC and Section 187 of M.V. Act. It is
evident that he was not prosecuted for driving without valid
driving licence. Therefore, when the respondent - Insurance
Company has not issued any notice to the owner of the vehicle
seeking to produce the driving licence of the driver, the oral
testimony of the RW1 alone would not be sufficient enough to
draw an inference that the driver was not having a valid driving
licence. In other words, the Ex.P3 has not been sufficiently
rebutted by the Insurance Company. No other circumstances,
which indicate that there was violation of the terms and
conditions of the policy is brought to the notice of this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019
12. Further, a perusal of the charge-sheet at Ex.P3
though states that the accident was on the road, the sketch has
not been produced. Therefore, there is nothing on record to
show that there was any contributory negligence on the part of
the petitioner.
13. The records also reveal that the petitioner had
sustained fracture of the shaft of right femur and distal end of
right radius. The Injury Certificate at Ex.P4, Discharge
Summaries at Ex.P10 and P11 would indicate the same. It is
also relevant to note that the implants had been removed as
per Ex.P11.
14. The PW2, who assessed the disability of the
petitioner has stated that there is disability of 20% to the upper
limb and 30% to the lower limb and in his opinion, the whole
body disability is 43%. The Disability Certificate issued by him
at Ex.P8 also depicts the same. It is relevant to note that it is
functional disability which is of relevance, but not the physical
disability. Petitioner claims that he was an Electrician, aged
about 22 years, but there is no acceptable evidence to show
that he was an Electrician. The Ex.P9 - Experience Certificate
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019
issued by one Rajeev Kumar is not proved as required under
law by examining the Author. In that view of the matter, even
though it is accepted that petitioner was doing the work of a
helper to an Electrician, the functional disability for manual
worker has to be assessed.
15. The Tribunal has assessed the functional disability
at 20%. It is worth to note that the fracture to the right radius
which is a dominant hand would definitely result in a little
higher disability than to the left hand. Hence, the disability of
the petitioner has to be considered at a little higher value and
in the considered opinion of this Court it would be proper to
consider the disability at 23%.
16. The notional income considered by the Tribunal at
Rs.7,000/- per month is in accordance with the guidelines
issued by the KSLSA as well as the wages fixed under the
Minimum Wages Act for a skilled worker. Hence, the loss of
future income on account of disability suffered is calculated as
Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 18 x 23% = Rs.3,47,760/-.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019
17. In the light of the injuries sustained, the
compensation under the head of pain and suffering at
Rs.30,000 needs to be enhanced to Rs.45,000/-.
18. Similarly, owing to the fact that the petitioner was
inpatient totally for a period of 21 days, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is
awarded to the petitioner under the heads of attendant's
charges, convenience charges and nutritious food etc.
Considering the nature of the injuries, it can safely be said that
the petitioner was unable to resume his work at least for a
period of 04 months. Hence, a sum of Rs.28,000/- is awarded
to him under this head.
19. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation
under the head loss of amenities in life, therefore, a sum of
Rs.40,000/- is awarded to him under the said head.
20. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards
medical expenses is just and proper and does not call for any
indulgence by this Court. In all, the appellant-petitioner is
entitled for total compensation as under:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019
1. Pain & Suffering Rs.45,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.1,81,000/-
3. Loss of income during laid up Rs.28,000/-
period
4. Loss of future income on account Rs.3,47,760/-
of disability
5. Loss of future amenities and Rs.40,000/-
happiness
6. Attendant, conveyance, food and Rs.20,000/-
nourishment charges
Total Rs.6,61,760/-
Less : Award by the Tribunal Rs.5,21,800/-
Enhancement Rs.1,39,960/-
21. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal filed by the
Insurance Company is bereft of any merits and the same is
liable to be dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the
claimants deserve to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal filed by the Insurance Company
is dismissed.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019
(ii) The MFA cross objections filed by the
claimant is allowed in part.
(iii) The petitioner/cross-objector is entitled for
a sum of Rs.1,39,960/- with interest at 6%
per annum from the date of petition till
realization, in addition to what has been
awarded by the Tribunal.
(iv) The Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the enhanced compensation along
with interest within a period of 06 weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
(v) The amount in deposit be transmitted to
the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(C.M. JOSHI)
JUDGE
TSN,SBS
CT: AK
