THE LEGAL MANAGER v. SMT R RAKSHA

(BY SMT. SUGUNA R REDDY.,ADVOCATE) AND:

1. SRI RAMAKRISHNA SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.R SMT. NETHRAVATHI, W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.44, 7TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, SARASWATHIPURAM MYSORE-570 009.

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER HDFC ERGO GEN INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.108/109, 111, 1ST FLOOR H.M.GENEVA HOUSE, NO.14, CUNNING HAM ROAD BANGALORE-560 052. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, V/O DTD:12.09.2025 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W) THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.9431/2015 FILED U/O 41, RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 26.6.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.7666/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDE, 28TH ACMM, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM SEEKING COMPENSATION PETITION ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. AND FOR THIS MFA AND MFA CROB HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 01.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35862 MFA No. 9431 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2016 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT MFA No.9431/2015 appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for setting aside the judgment and award dated 26.6.2015 passed in MVC No.7666/2012 on the file of the II Additional Small Causes Judge, 28th ACMM, Bengaluru.

2. MFA Crob No.79/2016 filed by appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for modifying the judgment and award dated

26.6.2015 passed in MVC No.7666/2012 on the file of the II Additional Small Causes Judge, 28th ACMM, Bengaluru and enhance the compensation.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35862 MFA No. 9431 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2016 HC-KAR

4. The injured claimant met with an accident on

13.07.2012 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.18,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.14,06,530/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of petition till deposit.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, Legal manager, HDFC Ergo General Insurance, Co., Ltd., preferred an appeal and mainly contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the father of the injured and he himself was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and died. The father of the injured who was driving the vehicle, due to sudden unexpected diversion, due to reflex action, the car went and dashed against median. The complaint was given by husband of the petitioner. The driver of the car succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. The petitioner herein was a married daughter. It cannot be said that she was travelling - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:35862 MFA No. 9431 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2016 HC-KAR as a paid passenger or hired the car, as such, the risk was not covered.

6. Learned counsel for the injured contended that the Tribunal granted meager amounts under the other heads, not granted any amount towards laid up period. It is stated that she sustained grievous and simple injuries in the accident. Tribunal has taken her income as only Rs.10,000 per month, though she is qualified and resigned her job with better benefits and prospects. The doctor assessed her disability as 50%. But the tribunal has taken only 30%. She is facing much difficulty of double vision. But the tribunal granted only Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities. The amount granted under the future medical expenses is also meager. She sustained disfigurement of face and no amount is granted towards disfigurement of face or loss of expectation of life. Interest is to be granted at the rate of 9% per annum. Further, contended that she is also entitled for medical expenses to an extent of Rs.5,20,780/-, as per the relevant documents filed before - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:35862 MFA No. 9431 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2016 HC-KAR the tribunal. Learned counsel for the injured relied upon the citation reported in AIR 2026 SCC 2392 in case between Mohinder Kaur (D) through LRs Vs Brij Lal Arora and Ors in which it was held that “Compensation in motor accident cases mush be “just and reasonable” and should provide meaningful relief to dependents of deceased”. She also relied upon another citation in SLP (Civil) Nos.18267/2025 in case of New India Assurance Co., ltd. Vs Dolly Satish Gandhi and Anr in which it was held as below, “In fine, we hold that the amount received as part of Mediclaim/medical insurance is not deductible from compensation as calculated by the concerned Tribunal, adjudicating a claim for compensation under the MVA which may also include compensation under the head of medical expenses, if claimed. These two stand on a different footing - one is statutory while the other is contractual and the latter is only a sequitur of premiums having been paid in the past while the other is an entitlement as a consequence of an accident or death in a motor vehicle accident.”

7. The complainant has not entered into the witness box. Admittedly injured was not employed gainfully and - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:35862 MFA No. 9431 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2016 HC-KAR she has given up her earlier employment for personal reasons. But still huge amount is granted under the head loss of amenities of life and under the head loss of future earnings. The medical expenses were covered by her husband's medical claim. There is no positive evidence to show that the said expenses were paid by injured herself. So also an amount of Rs.78,750/- was granted under the ‘Loss of earnings of husband during Medical treatment’. He was on medical leave and there is no evidence to show that there was loss of pay to him. Therefore, requested the court to set aside the order.

8. The manner of accident shows while petitioner was proceeding in a Tata Fortuner car bearing number KA- 09-Z-2088, the driver of the car driven it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, lost control over the vehicle and dashed against road divider. As a result, she sustained injuries and the name of the owner cum driver is Ramakrishna. He died in the accident. First respondent did not appear before the court. He was placed ex parte. - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:35862 MFA No. 9431 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2016 HC-KAR Second respondent filed written statement, in which the second respondent admitted the issuance of the policy in favour of offending vehicle and its validity, but disputed the other aspects, such as age, income, nature of injuries, reduction of her working capacity and the amount spent towards medical expenses.

9. Further, respondent No.2 also contended that the company is not liable to pay compensation as petitioner was not proceeding in the vehicle as a paid passenger. It cannot be said that she was travelling in the car as “on hire”. Therefore, they need not indemnify the risk. But the Tribunal observed that the second respondent has not placed any rebuttal evidence in support of contention. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the driver of the vehicle is father of the injured and complaint was given by her husband and the complainant was not examined before the court. As her father was riding the car, it cannot be said that she was travelling in the said car on hire or as paid passenger, therefore Insurance - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:35862 MFA No. 9431 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2016 HC-KAR Company is not liable to pay the amount. Respondent No.1 alone is liable, but he is no more.

10. It is further stated that she was aged 30 years, MBA graduate. She worked as a Resource Executive in New Era India Consultancy Private Limited

18.05.2010 to 19.04.2011. She resigned the job for her personal reasons. As on the date of accident, she was not working and earning. But the Tribunal considered her post graduation as MBA and took her earnings as Rs.10,000/- per month. As per Ex.P3 wound certificate, and Ex.P7/discharge summary, the petitioner sustained ‘bilateral impacted LE-Fort II fracture with fracture NOE, displaced comminuted fracture left zygoma with left orbital blow out fracture with facial lacerations with left shoulder injury’ and was treated as an inpatient from 14.07.2012 to

28.07.2014. She was admitted in the hospital for several times. PW2/doctor was also examined on her behalf. He stated the details of the injuries sustained by her as below, - 11 - NC: 2026:KHC:35862 MFA No. 9431 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2016 HC-KAR “1) Multiple lacerated injuries over face. 2) Nasal bone fracture 3) Edema of face present 4) Flattening of nasal dorsum 5) Diplopia with left enophalmox 6) Left malar eminence prominent, 7) Mid face mobility present 8) Mal occlusion with anterior open bite 9) Step deformity over bilateral infra orbital rims 10) Vision -6/6 bilaterally with diplopia 11) Widening of face with crepitus over left zygomatic arch, 12) Mouth opening approximately 1.5-2 cms. Compared to that of normal 13) Cut lacerated wound over chin and left temporal region 14) Bilateral nasal blockade due to clots, 15) Injury on the left shoulder, x-ray revealed bilateral impacted LE –Fort-II fracture of nasal bone 16) Displaced comminuted fracture left zygoma 17) Left orbital blow out fracture 18) Loosening of the teeth from sockets ie., loosening of 3 teeth in the upper jaw and 2 teeth in the lower jaw” As such the disability was assessed as 30% to the whole body.

11. Admittedly, she was not working at the time of the accident. As such, the amount granted by the Tribunal under the head loss of future earning capacity is not on proper appreciation of facts and is set aside. The - 12 - NC: 2026:KHC:35862 MFA No. 9431 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2016 HC-KAR petitioner stated that she incurred Rs.4,56,886/- towards medical expenses. She filed all the relevant documents. Respondent No.2 has taken a contention that the entire medical bill claimed under Ex.P8 was reimbursed by the employer of the petitioner’s husband. But it was not considered by the Tribunal and the said amount was granted under medical expenses. But the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.5,20,720/- towards medical expenses considering the other bills.

12. Ex.P19, is the salary certificate of the petitioner's husband and Ex.P20 is the leave certificate. As per Ex.P19, her husband was working with Hewlette Packard India Software Operations Pvt., Ltd., with an annual salary of Rs.8,10,000/-. The said certificate was issued for upgrading housing loan. Ex.P.20, is the leave letter from 07.01.2012 to 10.01.2012. She met with an accident on 13.07.2012 i.e., 7 months after the leave. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that he applied leave only to take care of her. As such, he is not entitled for any - 13 - NC: 2026:KHC:35862 MFA No. 9431 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2016 HC-KAR amount under the head ‘loss of earnings during the period of treatment’ to his wife.

13. Admittedly, the petitioner herein sustained as many as 18 injuries and she was admitted in the hospital for several times and underwent several surgeries, from

14.07.2012 to 28.07.2014. Therefore, this court finds that just and reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.75,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.50,000/- for transportation extra nourishment and attendant charges.

14. PW2/doctor stated that she requires another surgery for removal of the miniplates of the left maxillar and recorrection of the left eye watering and estimated the cost of the surgery as Rs.1,00,000/-. Tribunal granted only Rs.30,000/- but this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards her future medical expenses. She is also entitled for medical expenses to an extent of Rs.5,20,780/-, as per the relevant documents filed before the tribunal. - 14 - NC: 2026:KHC:35862 MFA No. 9431 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2016 HC-KAR

15. Thus in all, components awarded by this court are as below, Sl.Nos. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 2 3 4 5 Pain and suffering Loss of amenities Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Future medical expenses Medical expenses 1,00,000 75,000 50,000 75,000 5,20,780 8,20,780 Hence, the compensation granted by tribunal is reduced from Rs.14,06,530/- to Rs.8,20,780/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

16. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i. MFA No.9431/2015 filed by the HDFC- ERGO General Insurance is hereby partly allowed. - 15 - NC: 2026:KHC:35862 MFA No. 9431 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2016 HC-KAR ii. MFA Crob No.79/2016 hereby dismissed. iii. The judgment

26.06.2015 passed in MVC No.7666/2012 on the file of the II Addl. Small Causes Judge and XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru, is modified. iv. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.8,20,780/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.14,06,530/- granted by the tribunal. Respondent No.1 alone is liable to pay the amount, but he is no more. v. Respondent/Insurance Company already deposited 50% of the awarded amount before the tribunal and they are entitled for refund. - 16 - NC: 2026:KHC:35862 MFA No. 9431 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 79 of 2016 HC-KAR vi. Amount in deposit is to be transferred to MACT. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54