Karnataka High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Rajanna S/O Narasimhappa on 7 December, 2010
Bench: N.K.Patil, H.S.Kempanna
I
IN THI3 H EGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT EBANGALORE
DATED TIMIIS THE 07""? EBAY OF I) ECEMBER 201.0
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.1~'A'FI.I§;m" ' jjf 2-
AND
THE: HONBLE MR.JUs'riCI?; H.sA.i;iEMpANN.A'»V « T
M.F.A. N0.1O498 012006, 1VI.£?__.A.Ni5;.1_O631 c;r"?2;(m (5'
}\/I.P'.A.No. 1049'7_uo~:-1%2006(Mv}. T
IN MFA NO10498 OF 2_o_g§
BETWEEN:
TH}; NEW }ND§'A AsAs--uRANc:¥~:"v» -- if V
COMPANY :,§M1jn~;:x ..
REG:()NAL()FE1c:E Sf' . '
M}SSION"R()Ai) 'i:' _ «-
BANG A%,.0RH.~ 5w;:{)27 " « _ »
RfiPREiS}'£NT1£1) BY ETS _
}){V1S1()NALMANAG}3R ~. '
% . '. 7 " . .. ...APPP.LLANT
(BY SR1 M S R1\Jb:Nf;=«RA'vPRAsAD, ADV.)
A. .....
_ .Sf(').NARAS'Wi}~IAPPA
. TIPPU ~S'_U:..:'1fH,«x:\1 ROAD
AQME YEARS
P(.)'()',i'APPAN APALYA
m::V~z\NAI»1A1.1,.1
3_ "g<;MT. N..i.ANNI
'"W/OM RARJ.
M/\.E(')R
RE S i ii)? Ci AT C IE A:'V'i L? §")I*I 8 ii W AR I N AGAR A
MA§.){K!iR§ '1"ALL?}(
L.)
K()lL):'\(II3{_.E 1}IS'?Rl(.."I'
R¥iS!'()N!)EiNT.S
{BY SR! K.R.MUIU\LIKRIS}'1NA, ADV. FOR R1 2 ._
SR} T A ABDULLA FOR M/SHEGDE ASSOCIATES. A[)\7_FC')Rf
-"rms Mm as I31L!"~".I) LE/S 173(1) 0}: MV Ac'? ..;xL1;x1.N:S*r""1't}ir€:
}{1I)GI\:1}€?\'"I' ANIL) AWARD DAT£3I'):24.(}4.20('}6 pAss1}5;.D V ._MvC ..
N(_).=l4/2(}(}l ON THE 1411.1-a ('I)FTHI~1 1.9" ;x1'51')':T1()NfA1. scfll;-»jM1%:MB~I€:i»...
MACTT, COURT or SMALL CTAUSES. ?'v£E?[I€R(§'P(31.l'I';M\E'
BANGAL()RE.. (SCCH :\2o.m)._ .A\VARDDs_JG'~.V_COMP;"_;NsA:1m'1~-.I_"~..orr~._
RS.51.8{')(}/~ wma INTEREST AT cw: ' Tr_>.'A r«'RDM..T1~i1«', :)A*§"1é;Ca:):i~1.13L;fI'131'1c)%N , V >
TILL DEPOSIT.
IN MFA NQ10631 OF
BETWEEN:
smRpc)oJAPpA_._ _ _
Sf().SR1RAMAP:%'A j;,.- * _
AGED AB()U:T«*;s<3«(EA_1e..§; ' I .. V' .
RESIDENG AT '1':12;>t,: SU'L'TAN"-RfQAi> _
P0oJAPpANAPAL';*A.;DEV'_AN.AH.ALL_1_
T' ...APPELLANT
(BY SR; K R --MURA,1:,I_KRIS'H ADV.)
AND:
E. ; M/s_.NI~:w 1"ixs1)1A'AssiJRANCE CO. LTD
'~:*.:}{1gp}.:}_a;s15N'}"1¢-1). ms DIVISION AL MANAG§jéR
I)(i)!'l, 2*?' FLOOR. LAKS HM} COE\/1PLI€X
_ VAN: v'.!uLfAR H()SP!TAL ROAD
BANGALQRfi
SR1 C' M1: .A;YAPPA
._ K{;1'vI:3A3A13A1..)A \/'ILID.AGH & p<:>s'r
3/1A;;>n<r..-zm W "FALLIK
K{)__D"AGL§ DISTRICT
.r~>~
_ "';sM'1".NJ ANN!
W/OM RAJU
CI~I;'\.;V1UNI)I€SWARI?\EAGAR
M .A:)11<EaR1:1'.A1D,isK
. (B$_:7:3R1__{'M _s RAJ'--EN__D__RA PRASAD. ADV.)
KUDAG UvE)§STR}C."T
... m«:S1.>c)N1>EN'1s. * .. T . _V
[BY SR1 K. SURYANARAYANA RAD, ADV. FOR R':
SR1 M S PRAKASH. ADV. FOR R2
R3 ~ SERVED AND UN REPRESENTED)
THES EVIFA 1s E¥'II-EE3 ws 173(1)ft)¥r . Ac:'r-IAG;x:NVsfi*"'£"1~1i§;"«
JUDGMENT AND Aw-'ARI> 13AT1»:.::1):24;'<.14.2:}0<s~' 1>gx:>i:f~;'1'=:I,'i) 1N..'L"--:»»:V1:fj
N0.43/200] ()N THE}; 1~"n-r«: or 'r1~;:I;_'_14"'" .lUAI.")(7:-E. C<,)'1,;mi v'(:§)'§«' S§$:1A'LE- >
CAUSES. MEMBER. MACT. METt§.§)F{)L1T,AN.__A§r21§A; B'ANGVA1;'()R1a. *
(SCCH N().iU}, PARTLY A1,L()xv1_NCs<._fray'; CLA1M"'Pm"I*§:(.)N FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEi;'KI§\'G Hz§:H';'>,.;\I<_;':z:+:r»4';:::_\I':" 014 (:'<>M1>£NsA1'1<:)N
WITH 12%-1NTERE3S'f. ' * "
EN MFA NO.1049.27. OF 2005. j; '
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA :;gss1;'RANv{:E 'c:'0M::>ANY LTD.
REGIoNAL--QFFIc'1%:; " '
MISSION _ROAr;: _
BANGALORE'--- 156992?' _
REPRESENTED BY -Yrs "
DIv1s1oNAL_VMANAGE.R"
'- ...APPELLAN'I'
1." --..V%~RV'P%3;Q_JA:_Pi3A
~ ..!~..;"
S/Q s1:~;:AJRAMAP1>A
AGEDBES YEARS
F3,ESII)ING AT TIPPU SULTAN ROAD
A ; POOJAPPANAPALYA
D:«:vANAI--iA_r,L1
SMT N J ANNE
W'/() M RAJ U
MAJOR
4
RESIDING AT CHAMUNDESl"IW'ARlNAGARA
MADIKEZRI TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT.
~
(BY SR1 : K R MURALI KR1SHNA, ADV. FOR R1}
SR1 T 1 ABDULLA FOR M /S.HEGD}:3 AssOc1A*r;n:S;.A[:>fq.._ "
FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 373(1) OF
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DA'a['.m:)_;24/(>4i2{)0;<+ PASSED IN MVC
NO. 43/2()()i ON THE, FILE OF TI:~E4E*~..I4TlTADDE',A. MEIVIBER '
MACT. COURT OF SMALL CAu$E.s'_ ME:rROPOL1"I'AN AREA,
BANGALORE (scc1~1~1o;;.._ AWARDENG ""ACOMPEN'SATI0N OF
RS.2,67.800/» WITH 1N"rI~:z<4z:..é>:'1f_@:*{ 6:-'~2?;~P)}&.L'vvF'ROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. .
Tl-1'ESE A~P'PE.A'Ls COMING ON"'FO.R....iffEARING THIS DAY,
N. K. PATH. __3,«'DELIXKERED..:THE..FOLLQWlNG:
'''' '1'
by the insurer and the
O1aim_aI11: axis:-3 VO'at'~-,01"'~.-'the same impugned common
and AAaWa1-'uvdated 24.04.2006 passed in MVC
4:4:..0f 2001 on the fiie of the 14"" Addiiflional
Coitifi. Smail Causes, Member, Matti, M;etrOpO1it:ar1
K,Area, "B_ai.;galore (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunai' for
V.'-'_b:r§3w?i_f.y). The '1'ribL111aI by its impugneci cOmmOn
3'__f;dgmeI1i'. and award, a_ward<3ci a sum Of 32,67,800/~ to
33
the claimant in MVC No.43/2001 and 3551.800/W tr-_)___the
Claimant in MVC No.44/2001 with interest at
from the date of petition til} the date
against the claim for ?15,OO,0QO'/'~'-eae11
respondents- Being aggrieved byvthepsarrie,' _-the i'11sLn---er"~.
and the Claimant have presetiited these appropriate relief. V
2. The brief factsieofthe 1. n That 0ni._.:v1f§§'i';_at aj5efit'i'ii2""neen, when both the eieima}~ire~:i_at'i::??rM*.z%er"ti§ee';'43 44 of 2001 were travelling in a registration No. KA 13 728 as eooiies , " --«~ B..B.Road. near A_ Huijasanietranah--a1.1.i_a__iat that time, the driver of the said ic).rry..carr£e :i«n'h.i_gh speed in rash and negligent manner ar'1d""idasA1*Iejd .'against the iorry bearing registration Due to the impact, the Claimants A '~:ifs1A1Vst'ai.r1ed injuries on their body. Claimant in MVC N943/2001. was aged about 33 years and was 21 Coolie. / eggs X 53 6 He was hale and healthy prior to the accident.____ On account of the injuries sustained in the roadV"f_.fa_ffiC accident he uxldergone treatment. for 21 period'of--i V' in the hospital inpatient and that the right eye vision is iost at 30% to the whole body. Wound' he 'V V also sustained multiple laeeiratredu:'woun'ds"'nee_r right eyebrow with glass pieees,' lid tear, lacerated aspect of right eyebrow to the eyebrow, patient develoipediv at limbus about 8 111.111. and anterior chamber flat xzision ptercevptiondéind projection of light. A¢'3E:pi.i:5d1é1irr1a'ntirrMVC No.44/2001 sustained simple *-_i_njL_1riies.':'e;rid[fthe doctor has opined that there is no peri<11an__ei'it,iAdisability. The case of the claimant is that hasvspent considerable amount towards Conveyance, 'not1rishii1g food and attendant charges and medical 7 expenses. Taking all these relevant. facts __ into Consideration, he was constrained to file a Claim..'pe:ti.t,ion under Section 1.66 of MV Act. T he claim pet.iu'1iie11.4. * the eiaimants in MVC Nos. 43 a1"-id's'i-.4 of Rx for consideration before the Triblizna-l_.l in turn after perusal oi'lth'e"~..poralV. ai1d.ep:d_oe~eirnen:ta1y"' evidence available irhpugned common judgment arid': the claim petition in -- and ?5 1 ,8OO / -- different heads with interest of petition till the date of deposit; V with the same, the claimant aund,Vt.l1e" Insiiranee Company have presented " appeals seeldhlg appropriate relief. Wellliiliaive heard the learned Counsel for the lnsurariee Company and the learned Counsel for " c:Vlai'mai1tis for considerable length of time. yyoof"
8
4. After Critical evaluation of the materials available on record and the impugned e_o1n_ino'n judgment: and award passed by the 'l'ril';u11«;*ils:' V' emerges is that the ()C(3LEI'Ii'E3I1(1(':' "of--.thel_y a(.T.(t:1;l(1€_;1'[l -aiicvlg resultant injuries are not in dispute;-._l Ftirther; .11.; Case of the insurer that t,hellttiro'~eoolies..f' iivho were travelling in the vlorry reovelrede uilder the policy as the policy the risk of Coolie in faVo:t1rloIf~ Vehicle. It is significant ljllffribunal has rightly observeti ujluldéggnient that the insurer has the copy of the said policy and has not y_pr0rl'ue.edVl"'i:he subsequent pages of the firi "view ofWnon~pr0duci:ion of the subsequent pagesl '*'.'5.Tj1i.Cil ll tlescribe the type of the persons covered under puollilcy and the same are not placed on record. The Tribunal held that there was Valid policy as on the _ '<1-.a1'.e. of the accident and respondents No.1 and 3 in the p.ei:.1'.tirms, the insurer and the owner are jointly and X 5 9 severally liable to pay the comper1satio11 to the claimantts.
5. During the course of the sL1bm1ssioa.f"--«_Sri K.R.Murali Krishna. learned Counsel for cla1'Vi"aahet.'s~e ' produced the copy of the insurance»-policy'lhcl~t1dlhg_:'t.hVc.V ll second page of the policy. It schedule of premium that has/j~ as '' additional p1"en11'umV;----towarcls' coolies~7/ other employees in connection'*--.With__ roperation or maintaining :01-~:1%1;j.load1I1g dvejhivcle. Endttt. l7[2 persori,s(s.}]'. beyond reasonable doubt that the Vosxzfileyrlxof has insured for two coolies. Thetgetore, the considered View that the '"lf'ribuaa1,isyjltstified in fastening the liability on the l11s'ta1*a1it::efj---Ceihpany. Therefore, interference by the Coolt, called for and hence. appeals filed by the iir1'surer"i'r1 MFA Nos. 10498 and 10497 of 2006 are liable gel if .»r'''"
H} to be dismissed. so far as it relates to fastening the liability on the Insurance Company.
6. Learned Counsel for the claimant -- _ in MFA No.1()63l/2006. contends awarded by the Tribunal is :'1o'w'erl requires enhancement. Haring regard to tlie«»r:fa.cts circumstances stated fsuprai not 'find: error or irregularity committedzlilby in awarding ?90,000/-- towards ?6,000/--
towards /-- towards loss of anienitiesfl':'d_i4scoini'o*rts' and unhappiness and interference "is uncalled "for.
Ifiexyeverglltlie Tribunal has erred in awarding on.13:l"<'5;().{)'OV/.=.towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant.Vilfi:liarges, T/.200/-- towards loss of laid up period"a;nd ?l,29,600/-- towards loss of future income. regard to the age and occupation of the "claimant, we can safely reassess the income at 11 33,000/~p.m., as against 32.400/-- by the Tribunal. We accept the permanent disability by the doctor at 30% to the whole body. ' by Sri K.R.Mura1i Krishna and per of it the Apex Court in the Case of Sarita Verhia CiI_11.Ci'~Q2'.h.(?.',"TS'.I,)S'.V. Delhi Transport Corporatiortdctnd c:inoti1eAtV'",re'pVorted irr"
ZOO9 ACJ pg. 1298,' 'msu._1tip&iie'1*-Awould be ' '16'. Therefore, compensation 3 1 , 72, 800 /-- ;?f;2I;toeo/ fies' /V} towards loss of future claimants might have towards conveyance, nourishirig charges and might have 1lI1d:fJI'~gQI1€'ua treatmerit and followwup treatment for a pgriémiaof three Taking all the relevant facts we deem it fit. to award ?10,000/~ towards" conveyance, notirishirig food and atteridant {.:harg.;.evs«:'ar1d 39,000/-- towards loss of laid up period t' 3,500/-- x 3 months).
. i * meat, 13
8. For the foregoiiag reasons, MFA Nos.1049_8_ar1d 10497 of 2006 filed by the Ensuranee C0n1peiiiy:"'*iss hereby dismissed holding that the rteiinpvensatii6.151: V' awarded by the Tribunal in MVC"'N*0.44-'_"0f 'dish./_j'ns}t.A V' and reasonable and does not call 12914 ir1t:er_feren.eefiaridw._ MFA No.iO631/2006 fi1ed'sr1§yi.e'the" V No.43 of 2001 is alioyved iinpugned common judgment and passed in MVC V'§1_f}Tf"VviAdditi0na1 Judge, Court of Bangalore is hereby 0i_%5(3,000/- with interest at the rate 540/0' of petition. till the date of rea1i:.sati0n: the Compensation awarded by i4nsi.i:1_';.anee: Company is directed to deposit. the enh_ane.ed.i'e.a_mpe11sat.i0n amount with interest within 3 weeks-fl'"0m the date of receipt of the Copy of this ' rjt1'dg§,en1ent. and award.
13 Out of the enhanced compensation of ?5O,Q__O0/A, ?25,000/- with proportionate interest shall be in the name of claimant in MVC No.43/ Nationaiised Bank or Schedu1ed"'Ba11k-'_4forMaf.pef1o_CE. of five years and renewal for aIi'oth-er' five ._ye.a17s"
permission to withdraw i11ter'--es't.periodica--11y';_; S Remaining w"._\v;i_tEi "pi"opoyt,ionate interest shall be released in of the" immediately on depositin Ariioundt, in iraizsrniited to the ' jurisdictional Tribuiial Vi'mn;edia§ieIy. . "Office«io5draw«_the accordingly. Sd/=3 JUDGE Sd/-4 JUDGE