The High Court
Case Details
- 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) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 924 OF 2014 (MV-I) C/W 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 (BY SRI. S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT AND: 1. SRI.D.LAZAR Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA S/O S.DHARMALINGAM AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O NO.10/16/2 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 (BY SRI.VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS - 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:
Legal Reasoning
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 (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 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) ...RESPONDENTS 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13543 MFA No. 2738 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 924 of 2014 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: Heads SL. No. 1. Pain and sufferings 2. Attendant charges 3. 4. Loss of income during laid up period Food, diet and nutrition 7. 6. 5. Medical expenses Conveyance and incidental charges Loss of discomfort and amenities of life Loss of future income due to disability Future medical expenses 8. 9. Compensation Awarded : Rs. : Rs. : Rs. 20,000/- 625/- 750/- : Rs. 1,000/- : Rs. : Rs. 54,000/- 500/- : : : Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 42,120/- Rs. 10,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 1,43,995/- - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13543 MFA No. 2738 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 924 of 2014 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 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13543 MFA No. 2738 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 924 of 2014 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 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13543 MFA No. 2738 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 924 of 2014 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 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13543 MFA No. 2738 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 924 of 2014 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. 1 (2014) 11 SCC 178 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13543 MFA No. 2738 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 924 of 2014 8. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: SL. No. 1. 2. Heads Compensation Awarded by Tribunal Pain and sufferings : Rs. 20,000/- : Rs. 2,125/- Attendant charges, Food, diet and nutrition, Conveyance and incidental charges Compensation Awarded by this Court 40,000/- 7,000/- 5. 6. 7. 3. Loss of income during laid up period 4. Medical expenses Loss of discomfort and amenities of life : Rs. 750/- 21,000/- : Rs. : Rs. 54,000/- 15,000/- 54,000/- 20,000/- Loss of future income due to disability Future medical expenses : : Rs. 42,120/- 65,520/- Rs. 10,000/- 15,000/- 8. Legal expenses : Rs. 00/- 10,000/- TOTAL Enhancement : Rs. 1,43,995/- : Rs. 88,525/- 2,32,520/- 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 MFA No. 2738 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 924 of 2014 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 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7