Karnataka High Court
The National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Chandramma on 31 January, 2020
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1369/2017
BETWEEN:
The National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Represented by the Regional Manager,
Regional Office,
# 144, Subharam Complex,
M.G.Road,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
...APPELLANT
(By Sri. A.N.Krishna Swamy, Advocate)
AND:
1. Chandramma,
W/o. Nagegowda,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at. Sathenahalli Village,
Channarayapatna Taluk,
Hassan Dist. - 573 213.
2. Govindegowda,
S/o. Thopegowda,
R/at. Sathenahalli Village,
Dandiganahalli Hobli,
Channarayapatna Taluk,
Hassan Dist. - 573 213.
... Respondents
( R1 & R2 - served)
2
This MFA is filed u/s 173(1) of MV Act against the
judgment and award dated 26/09/2016 passed in MVC
No.112/2015 on the file of the 4th Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Hassan District, sitting at
Channarayapatna, awarding compensation of
Rs.1,45,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of
petition till realization, etc.
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the
Court delivered the following;
JUDGMENT
The insurance company is in appeal challenging compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by the respondent/claimant - Chandramma.
2. The case put-forth before the Tribunal was that when the claimant was walking on Sathenhalli - Chowlagala Road, near Ranishree Petrol bunk, a Hero Honda motor bike bearing registration No.KA-13/EC -1056 hit her, as a result of which, she sustained multiple injuries. She claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the accident.
3
3. The owner of the offending vehicle/motor bike chose to remain absent and was placed exparte.
4. The insurance company resisted the claim petition on the ground that in the FIR it was stated that an unknown motor bike hit the claimant and there was one day's delay in filing the FIR thereby indicating the implication of the motor cycle.
5. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the owner of the vehicle was responsible for the said accident.
6. Learned counsel for the insurance company contends that if the entire evidence is considered in its totality, the possibility of the motor bike being implicated solely for claiming compensation is writ large. According to him, though the accident occurred on 27/07/2014, claimant chose to get the FIR registered on the following day and the MLC register also indicated that she was examined only on 28/07/2014 at 11.00 a.m. He further 4 contended that since the claimant chose not to visit the hospital on the very day of the accident, the entire accident was itself doubtful.
7. The Tribunal on consideration of Ex.R3- MLC register, has come to the conclusion that an accident had occurred. Indeed in Ex.R3 -MLC register maintained in the Government Hospital, there is a clear entry regarding the accident having occured due to the involvement of the motor cycle. There is no reason to discard this piece of evidence especially when the insurance company is also relying on the same document - Ex.R.3.
8. Having regard to the fact that the Tribunal is constrained to decide the claim cases by applying preponderance of probabilities, I am of the view that the determination of the Tribunal that accident took place in the manner stated in the claim petition cannot be found fault with.
5
9. As regards the compensation awarded, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the sums awarded under different heads are fanciful and were required to be reduced. There is some substance in the said argument. Though the Tribunal held that the claimant produced medical bills to the extent of Rs.22,185 and contended that she required another surgery to remove the implants which according to her would cost Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/-, the Tribunal proceeded to grant Rs.35,000/- towards medical expenses. In the absence of any acceptable proof regarding future medical expenses, it would be unsafe to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards future medical expenses. Therefore I am of the view that the compensation awarded towards medical bills required to be reduced from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.25,000/-.
10. The Tribunal has assessed the whole body disability at 5% and proceeded to award Rs.50,000/-. In my view, this sum is on the higher side. Admittedly, the 6 claimant suffered one fracture, which according to her restricted her ankle movement. The Tribunal having assessed the whole body disability at 5%, should not have awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. Having regard to the fact the State Legal Services Authority has determined a sum of Rs.25,000/- to be just and proper compensation for a fracture. I am of the view that it would be appropriate if the compensation of Rs.50,000/- granted towards disability is reduced to Rs.25,000/-.
11. The sums awarded under other heads are just and proper and are confirmed. The claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,10,000/-. The break up figure is as follows;
Sl.No Description Amount
1 Injury, pain and suffering 30,000/-
2 Loss of income during 10,000/-
treatment period
3 Conveyance, attendant, 10,000/-
nourishment & Transportation
charges
4. Permanent Disability 25,000/-
7
5 Medical expenses 25,000/-
Total 1,10,000/-
11. The learned counsel for the insurance company vehemently contended that the Tribunal would not have awarded interest at 9%. This submission merits consideration. The Tribunal ought not to have awarded interest at 9% per annum, which is reduced to 6% from the date of the claim petition till realisation.
12. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. The insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount including enhanced compensation together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit.
The amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Msu