MRS MUNAWAR JABEEN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

M.F.A. NO.314 OF 2014 (MV-I) C/W M.F.A. NO.1509 OF 2014 (MV-I), M.F.A. NO.1510 OF 2014 (MV-I), M.F.A. NO.1511 OF 2014 (MV-I), M.F.A. NO.313 OF 2014 (MV-I) & M.F.A. NO.315 OF 2014 (MV-I)

IN MFA NO.314/2014:

BETWEEN:

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PEENYA BRANCH OFFICE, BANGALORE-560 058. THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.18, 5TH & 6TH FLOORS, KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001. REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE)

2 AND:

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.600/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER MACT-4, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,44,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

3 IN MFA NO.1509/2014:

BETWEEN:

NAGARAJA .A., S/O ANNAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.91, SARAKKI MAIN ROAD, OPP. MKR PLAZA, J.P. NAGAR. 1ST PHASE, BANGALORE-560078. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. P. SURESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

4 (BY SRI. H.N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; NOTICE SERVED TO RESPONDENT NO.2 BUT UNREPRESENTED)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.598/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER MACT-4, BANGALORE ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN MFA NO.1510/2014:

BETWEEN:

LOKESH B.R. S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT: NO.3, NEAR LAKSHMI GRANITE, SARAKKI, J.P NAGAR, BANGALORE-560078. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. P. SURESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

5 NO.750, RAJANNA BUILDING, NEAR ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE, PEENYA 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560058. REPT. BY ITS INCHARGE MANAGER.

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.599/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER MACT-4, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN MFA NO.1511/2014:

BETWEEN:

S. MANJUNATH S/O LATE S.M. SURENDRA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT: NO.153, SHANTHI NIVASA, 12TH CROSS, SARAKKI MAIN ROAD, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560078. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. P. SURESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

6 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, CENTERINARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. REPT. BY ITS INCHARGE MANAGER.

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.600/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-4, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

7 IN MFA NO.313/2014:

BETWEEN:

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PEENYA BRANCH OFFICE, BANGALORE-560058. THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.18, 5TH AND 6TH FLOORS, KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

8 R/AT KODIHALLI, SAHAKARANAGARA POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 078. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; NOTICE SERVED TO RESPONDENT NO.3 BUT UNREPRESENTED)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.598/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-4, BANGALORE AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,39,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

IN MFA NO.315/2014:

BETWEEN:

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PEENYA BRANCH OFFICE, BANGALORE-560 058. THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.18, 5TH & 6TH FLOORS, KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

9 R/AT NO.3, NEAR LAKSHMI GRANITE, SARAKKI, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560078.

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESS ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.599/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER MACT-4, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.40,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, NATARAJ RANGASWAMY, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

10 JUDGMENT MFA Nos.313/2014, 314/2014 and 315/2014 are filed by the insurer of the lorry bearing registration number KA-04-B-3773 challenging the liability imposed upon it by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-4) to pay 10% of the compensation awarded in MVC Nos.598/2012,

MVC No.600/2012 and MVC No.599/2012 respectively.

1510/2014 and 1511/2014

are filed by the respective claimant challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the MVC Nos.598/2012, 599/2012 and 600/2012 respectively.

11 4. The appellant in MFA Nos.313/2014, 314/2014 and 315/2014 will henceforth be referred to as the ‘insurer’ of the lorry involved in the accident while the respective appellant in MFA Nos.1509/2014, 1510/2014 and 1511/2014 will henceforth be referred to as the ‘claimant’.

12 claimant in MVC No.600/2012 was shifted to Harsha Hospital and later to Bharathi Nursing home. The driver of the lorry lodged a complaint against the driver of the car and Crime No.486/2011 was registered by Madanayakanahalli police for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the car. The claimants thereafter filed claim petitions claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-, Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.18,00,000/- respectively in MVC Nos.598/2012, 599/2012 and 600/2012 against the owner and insurer of both car and the lorry.

13 owners against the compensation that may be awarded by the Tribunal.

14 9. In so far as the claim for compensation is concerned, the Tribunal noticed that the claimant in MVC No.598/2012 had filed his income tax returns for the assessment year 2011-12, wherein his gross income was Rs.3,33,730/- of which a sum of Rs.7,594/- was the tax paid and thus the annual income was Rs.3,26,131/- and income tax returns for the year 2012-13 indicated a gross salary of Rs.3,26,131/- and after deducting the tax of Rs.6,275/-, his annual income was Rs.3,19,856/- and it noticed that this claimant had suffered (i) left acetabular fracture (ii) right tibia lateral condylar fracture with depression (iii) multiple lacerations on left side of the face and multiple abrasions over face/shoulder and arms. It noticed from the evidence of PW.4 that the claimant was an inpatient from 23/11/2011 to 01/12/2011 during which he underwent open reduction and internal fixation of right lateral tibial condylar fracture with internal plates and conservatively managed the other fracture. He underwent upper eye lid reconstruction. PW.4 deposed that after the surgery and conservative treatment, the fractures had

15 united. He deposed that the disability suffered by this claimant was 15% to the whole body. The Tribunal considered the notional income of this claimant at a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month and awarded the following compensation: Heads of compensation Amount in Rupees Pain and suffering 40,000/- Loss of amenities and happiness 20,000/- Medical and Incidental charges 2,06,000/- Loss of earning during the period of treatment 15,000/- Loss of future earning due to disability 1,08,000/- Future medical expenses 50,000/- TOTAL 4,39,000/-

The Tribunal awarded interest at 6% per annum on the aforesaid compensation from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.

16 left eye infra orbital region, which in the opinion of PW.5 were simple injuries for which he took treatment from 23-11-2011 to 24-11-2011. Though he claimed that he was earning a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month, he did not place any material on record in proof thereof.

17 considered the notional income of this claimant at a sum of Rs.5000/- per month and awarded the following compensation: Heads under which compensation is awarded Amount in Rupees Pain and suffering 40,000/- Loss of amenities and happiness 20,000/- Medical and incidental charges 2,48,000/- Loss of earnings during the period of treatment 15,000/- Loss of future earnings due to disability 96,000/- Future medical expenses 25,000/- TOTAL 4,44,000/-

18 pay 10% of the compensation while the claimants have sought enhancement of the compensation.

19 any mechanical defect and therefore, the contention of the insurer of the lorry that the driver had parked the lorry as it had mechanical defects, does not merit consideration. If the driver of the lorry had parked it on the main carriage way and if the accident occurred at 10.40 a.m, it is quite impossible that the driver of the car would not have noticed it, as the National highway is straight at that point. Therefore, it could be a case of the lorry abruptly swerving to the left to park it, without giving any indication. Hence, the Tribunal was right in fixing contributory negligence of 10% on the driver of the lorry and therefore, the appeals filed by the insurer do not merit consideration.

20 assessed at a sum of Rs.3,22,996/- per annum. Thus his monthly income was Rs.26,916/- or Rs.27,000/-. Hence, taking into account the disability sustained by the claimant at 15% to the whole body as deposed by PW.4, which was not discredited and having regard to the age of the claimant, which was 38 years as on the date of the accident, the compensation awarded to the claimant in MVC No.598/2012 deserves to be redetermined as follows: Heads under which compensation is awarded Amount (in Rupees) Towards Pain and suffering 40,000/- Loss of amenities 20,000/- Medical expenses 2,06,000/- Loss of income during the laid up period of three months at Rs.27,000/- per month 81,000/- Loss of income due to disability @15% Rs.27,000/-x 12x 15 x 15/100 7,29,000/- Future Medical expenses 50,000/- Total 11,26,000/-

21 20. In so far as the claimant in MVC No.599/2012 is concerned, he did not place on record any material regarding his avocation. However, the Tribunal ought to have awarded the medical expenses of Rs.27,554/- incurred by this claimant. Though the claimant claimed that he was employed as a manager, he has not adduced any evidence to show that he was not paid any income during his period of treatment or that he had suffered any loss of income due to the injury sustained. However, it is noticed that the Tribunal has not separately considered granting compensation under the other conventional heads such as attendant / conveyance charges and the loss of amenities as well as the pain and suffering. Hence, this Court considers it fit to redetermine the compensation payable to this claimant as follows: Heads under which compensation is awarded Amount (in Rupees) Pain and suffering 25,000/- Medical expenses 27,554/- Loss of amenities 15,000/- Attendant/ conveyance/ incidental expenses 10,000/- Total 77,554/-

22 21. Hence the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant in MVC No.599/2012 is to be enhanced to a sum of Rs.77,554/- as against a sum of Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

23 Heads of compensation Amount (in Rupees) Pain and suffering 40,000/- Medical expenses 2,45,213/- Loss of amenities 20,000/- Loss of income @Rs.10,000/-per month during period of treatment of three months 30,000/- Loss of income due to disability at 12% (Rs.10,000/-x 12 x 16 x 12/100) 2,30,400/- Attendant / conveyance / nutritious food charges 15,000/- Future Medical expenses 35,000/- Total 6,15,613/-

Hence the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant in MVC No.600/2012 deserves to be enhanced to a sum of 6,15,613/-.

24 appellant are allowed in part and in modification of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the compensation awarded to the claimant in MVC No.598/2012 is enhanced from Rs.4,39,000/- to Rs.11,26,000/- and the compensation awarded to the claimant in MVC No.599/2012 is enhanced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.77,554/- and the compensation awarded to the claimant in MVC No.600/2012 is enhanced from Rs.4,44,000/- to Rs.6,15,613/-.

25 28. The amount in deposit before this Court at the behest of the insurer in MFA Nos.313/2014, 314/2015 and 315/2015 shall be transferred to the Tribunal for necessary orders.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

sma