The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2106 MFA No. 7838 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7838 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD CENTENERAY BUILDING 5TH FLOOR, M.G.RAOD BANGALORE-560 001 (BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SATHISHA R S/O RADHAKRISHNA NOW AGED 22 YEARS NO.113/43, KETHIGANAHALLI MAIN ROAD BIDADI TOWN, RAMANAGAR DIST …APPELLANT Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O VEERABHADRAIAH B.S NO.398, HOSABEEDHI KETHAGANAHALLI MAIN ROAD BIDADI TOWN, RAMANAGAR DIST (OWNER OF CAR NO KA-42-M-6863) …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
apparently seen that there is no dispute with regard to the claimant being a Carpenter by profession and his age being 26 years as on the date of occurrence of the accident. The Doctor has opined with regard to the injury sustained. No doubt he has stated that the fracture is united but it is also stated that he has pain and limp in the right hip with foot drop, lower back and thigh extending to knee and he has got Neurological deficit both motor and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2106 MFA No. 7838 of 2022 sensory and there would be difficulty while sitting on the floor, squatting and while climbing stairs, difficulty on standing on both legs, standing on affected leg, kneeling down etc. Therefore, assessing all these aspects, the Doctor - PW.3 has opined disability to an extent of 63% to both the limbs and whole body disability at 21%, which has been taken by the tribunal. 9. The contention and argument of the learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company is very appealing to reduce the disability on consideration of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident. Though PW.2 may not be a Neurological expert, there is certainly a deficit in both motor and sensory aspects of the injuries sustained by the claimant, which would affect his day-to-day activities for the present and future. There is a limp in the right hip with foot drop. Though it may not be a neurological disorder, there would certainly be nerve deficit and motor sensory disorder deficit. It is the Doctor, who would be the best person to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2106 MFA No. 7838 of 2022 assist the disability more specifically the functional disability. Taking into consideration the avocation of the claimant being a Carpenter, the functional disability assessed by the Doctor - PW.3, the same accepted by the tribunal is justified and I do not find any good ground of cogent reason to reduce the same. Hence, it is retained. 10. There is no quarrel with regard to the income and multiplier, hence, the same are retained. The tribunal awarded 40% towards future prospects, I am not inclined to disturb the opinion and findings of the tribunal with regard to the future prospects, as learned counsel has relied upon the judgment in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Abdul reported in LAWS(KAR)-2022-5-49 whereby the Divisional Bench of this Court at para 31 has stated as under: "(31) Resultantly we are constrained to reject the contention of Sri. G. N. Raichur, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 'Loss of future prospects' also has to be factored in notwithstanding the fact that this is not a case - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2106 MFA No. 7838 of 2022 of death but a case of injury without amputation resulting in whole body disability to the extent of 20% which ultimately has a bearing on the reduced earning capacity. It is essentially on account of the fact that money value does not remain constant over a long spell of years and thus claimant being aged only 40 years, he has long years ahead of him to look forward to, the sliding value of the money will have adverse impact on his future prospects. Accordingly, having due regard to the fact that he was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident, 25% of his established income will have to be factored in towards compensation for 'loss of future prospects'. Therefore, 'loss of earning capacity' is recomputed as follows: Rs.6.000.00 +25% (Rs.1,500.00) = Rs.7,500.00 Rs.7,500.00 x 12 x 15 x 20% = Rs.2,70,000.00." 11. The tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.4,20,050/- towards medical expenses, Rs.8,000/- towards food and nourishment and attendant charges, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.43,500/- towards loss of income during the treatment, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2106 MFA No. 7838 of 2022 Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.40,000/- towards future medical expenses, which do not call for interference and the same are retained. 12. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any good ground to interfere with well-reasoned judgment rendered by the tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following: i) ii)
Arguments
(BY SRI. C. PUTTASWAMY AND SRI. K.T. MADHU, ADVOCATES FOR C/R1; VIDE ORDER DTD.07.02.2024 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.09.2022 PASSED IN MVC - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2106 MFA No. 7838 of 2022 NO. 1774/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AND M.A.C.T., BENGALURU AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.15,41,202/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT OF THE AMOUNT IN THE TRIBUNAL. (SCCH-22), THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC.No.1774/2020 by the XX Additional Small Causes Judge and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-22) on 01.09.2022 on the ground that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is exorbitant and seeking to set aside the same and alternatively, to reduce the compensation amount. 2. The occurrence of the accident, involvement of the vehicle and injuries sustained by the respondent- claimant are all proved and established by production of Exs.P1 to P23. The liability fixed against the Insurance Company is accepted, but what is questioned is the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2106 MFA No. 7838 of 2022 quantum and computation of the compensation on several heads. 3. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company that the tribunal has committed a gross error in awarding the exorbitant compensation without taking into consideration the material placed on record, including the evidence of the doctor, PW.3, wherein he has opined disability to an extent of 21%, which is erroneous, as he himself has agreed in the cross-examination that he is not a neurologist and neither has he obtained an opinion from the neurologist with regard to the neurological disorder. 4. It is also contended by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the compensation awarded under the heads of future medical expenses and loss of amenities requires to be scaled down drastically as it is on the higher side. On these grounds, including the fact that there was no need or requirement to award future prospects, as this is not the case of death, neither is it a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2106 MFA No. 7838 of 2022 case of an amputation. Therefore, he contends that the awarding of future prospects is erroneous and same requires to be set aside. On these grounds he seeks to allow his appeal. 5. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent-claimant sustains the impugned order passed by the tribunal. He contends there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the order passed by the tribunal. The compensation awarded is just and reasonable. The tribunal is justified in awarding the future prospects in view of the disability assessed by the Doctor - PW.3 at 63% to both lower limbs and 21% disability to the whole body. He further contends that this factor has been taken into consideration by taking note that the claimant is a Carpenter by profession and therefore, the disability would be 21% to the whole body in view of his avocation. 6. Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant contends that there is no irregularity, arbitrariness or illegality in the judgment and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2106 MFA No. 7838 of 2022 award passed by the tribunal. Hence, he seeks to sustain the same and dismiss the appeal preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. The only point for consideration is : "Whether the disability assessed by the tribunal is justified and the disability of 21% assessed by the tribunal requires to be reduced?" 8. On careful examination of the evidence adduced by the Doctor along with that of the claimant, it is
Decision
ORDER The appeal is dismissed; Judgment rendered by the tribunal is affirmed; iii) The balance compensation amount, if not paid by the Insurance Company shall be deposited within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. iv) The amount in deposit and original records shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith; - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2106 MFA No. 7838 of 2022 v) In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, pale into insignificance; vi) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE AM,CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9