The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13458 MFA No. 3548 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3548 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SMT. SUHASINI, W/O R. LOKANANDHAM NAIDU AGED ABOIUT 33 YEARS, R/O NO.5-10, AYANAVEDU, MUTHUKURU, POST, ANAGALU, CHITTOR - 517 507, ANDRA PRADESH. (BY SRI. JAGADEESH H.T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PUNITH KUMAR, NO.26, DARMANNA GARDEN, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, CHAMUNDINAGER, R.T. NAGAR, HORT NAGER, BANGALORE - 560 032. 2. THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, 5TH CROSS, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …APPELLANT
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.440/16 ON THE FILE OF THE 21ST ACMM & 23RD ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13458 MFA No. 3548 of 2017 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the Judgment and Award passed in M.V.C. No.440/2016 dated 17.03.2017 by the Court of M.A.C.T, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, the claimant is before this Court. 2. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a road traffic accident. It is the case of the claimant that on 26.11.2015 at about 7.00 a.m., the claimant was riding the Honda Activa from J.P.Nagar 15th Cross to Puttenahalli on 24th Main Road, at that time, when she reached near Crystal Castle Hotel, J.P.Nagar, a Tata Indica car driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's vehicle and she fell down and sustained injuries all over the body. When it comes to liability, the Tribunal has held that the driver of the offending vehicle is not having a valid driving license. As such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and the liability is fastened on the owner of the vehicle. Then when it comes to the compensation, according to the claimant, she is - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13458 MFA No. 3548 of 2017 earning an amount of Rs.25,000/- p.m. and the Tribunal had taken Rs.8,000/- as income. In the evidence of the doctor, it is stated that she had sustained 43% disability to the left lower limb and 22% of disability to the whole body, but the Tribunal had taken as 10% disability. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ claimant submits that whether the driver of the offending vehicle is having a valid driving license or not, still the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Secondly, with regard to the compensation, he submits that when the doctor has deposed that 43% disability to the limb, 22% to the whole body, the Tribunal ought not to have taken 10% and the salary that is taken as Rs.8,000/- is on the lower side. Even on all the heads also, the amount that is granted by the Tribunal is not a just and reasonable compensation. 4. Learned counsel appearing to the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had rightly granted the compensation. It is submitted that, the interest is granted at 8% p.a. instead of 6% p.a. They had no occasion to file the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13458 MFA No. 3548 of 2017 appeal because they are not aggrieved by the quantum of compensation. As such, the same needs to be reduced. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. First coming to the aspect of liability, the claimant is a third party to the Insurance Policy and whether the driver of the offending vehicle is not having a driving license or not, still the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in the light of the law laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others1 case. Next, coming to the compensation, the claimant had sustained one grievous injury. As such, under the head 'pain and suffering', this court is granting an amount of Rs.40,000/-. Coming to the 'medical expenses', there is no dispute as the Tribunal had granted as per the evidence on the records and even on 'conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges also', there is no dispute. Coming to the 'loss of amenities', this Court is granting an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the disability of 14%. Then even on 'future medical expenses', the Tribunal 1 2004 ACJ 1 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13458 MFA No. 3548 of 2017 had reasonably granted the amount and no interference is called for from this Court. When it comes to the 'loss of future income', when the doctor had deposed that it is 43% disability to the limb, 1/3rd of it is 14%. The Tribunal ought to have taken it as 14% and coming to the 'income', though there is no evidence, considering the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and as the accident is of the year 2015, this Court is taking Rs.9,000/- as notional income. As the claimant is aged 32 years, the appropriate multiplied applicable is '16'. Therefore, the 'loss of future income' would be Rs.9,000 x 12 x 16 x 14/100 = Rs.2,41,920/-. The 'loss of income during laid up period' is concerned, considering the injuries, it requires at least three months of rest. Therefore, a sum of Rs.27,000/- (Rs.9,000 x 3) is granted under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'. 6. 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. 2 (2014) 11 SCC 178 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13458 MFA No. 3548 of 2017 7. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: SL. No. Heads 1. Loss of future income Compensation Awarded by Tribunal : Rs. 1,53,600.00 Compensation Awarded by this Court 2,41,920.00 2. Pain and suffering : Rs. 20,000.00 40,000.00 3. Loss of amenities : Rs. 15,000.00 30,000.00 5. 4. Medical expenses Conveyance and nourishment Future medical expenses Loss of income during laid up period 7. 6. 8. Legal expenses TOTAL Rounded off to Enhancement : Rs. 78,330.00 78,330.00 : Rs. 20,000.00 20,000.00 : Rs. 20,000.00 20,000.00 : Rs. -- 27,000.00 -- : Rs. : Rs. 3,06,930.00 : Rs. 3,07,000.00 : Rs. 1,60,250.00 10,000.00 4,67,250.00 -- 8. Altogether, the claimant is entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.4,67,250/-. i) Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.3,07,000/- to Rs.4,67,250/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13458 MFA No. 3548 of 2017 ii) Respondent No.2-Insurance Company shall pay the compensation amount at the first instance then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. iii) Respondent No.2-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) No costs. vi) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT: BHK