Karnataka High Court
The Area Manager, Reliance General ... vs Chandrashekher S/O Mounesh & Anr on 20 February, 2018
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy, G.Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.200108/2017 (MV)
BETWEEN
The Area Manager
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
IIIrd Floor, Asain Plaza
Timmapur Circle
Gulbarga
(Now represented by Authorized
Signatory, Hubli)
...Appellant
(By Smt. Preeti Patil Melakundi, Advocate)
AND
1. Chandrashekher S/o Mounesh
Age: 29 years, Occ: Field Officer
Now Nil, R/o: Hasnapur,
Tq: Shorapur, Dist: Yadgir - 585 201
2. Laxminarayan S/o Shankarlal Rathi
Occ: Owner and Driver of the Vehicle
R/o: Hemku, Old Jevargi Road
Gulbarga - 585 101
...Respondents
(By Sri Chaitanya Kumar C.M., Advocate for R1;
Sri Nandakishore Boob, Advocate for R2-absent)
2
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173 (1)
of MV Act, praying to call for the records and allow the above appeal
by setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated:
15.03.2016 in MVC No.85/2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge &
Addl. MACT, Shorapur.
This appeal coming on for admission this day, G.NARENDAR J.,
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent No.1.
2. The appellant is the insurer and is before this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC No.85/2014 dated 15.03.2016 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Shorapur allowing the claim petition, preferred by the respondent No.1-claimant, whereby a sum of Rs.19,45,000/- awarded with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
3. The case of the appellant is that; the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the respondent- claimant at Rs.12,000/- p.m. It is not disputed by the appellant that the appellant was employed by the Life 3 Insurance Corporation of India albeit as Apprentice in a permanent post of Field Officer. It is also not disputed that the claimant is holding a Bachelor Degree in Engineering. If both these aspects are taken into consideration, the income fixed at Rs.12,000/- p.m. by the Tribunal is neither on the higher side nor is it without basis and it can be easily presumed that a Graduate Engineer can easily earn a sum of Rs.12,000/-p.m. Hence, the appeal questioning the quantum requires to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.
4. Nextly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the award of a sum of Rs.4,57,599/- under the head of medical expenses is on the higher side and is not supported by necessary medical records or prescriptions.
5. On a query from this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant would place on record before the Court the copy of the disability certificate and the discharge summary, issued by the hospital authorities. On a bare perusal of the same, it would clearly demonstrate 4 that the patient has suffered extensive injury to the face and as also to the brain. The records speak of damage to the nerves and loss of cognitive functions, restriction in movement of the jaw and in the alignment of jaw resulting in speech difficulty. It also details damage to the left fronto right parietal region and bilateral sphenoid bones and the right side mandible of the facial bones. From the detail of the injuries suffered by the injured are suffice for this Court to infer that the sum awarded by the Tribunal is neither an excessive nor baseless. Hence, we do not see any further grounds to entertain the appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal stands rejected. The statuary amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE BL