M/S Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd v. Sri Rudregowda

NC:(2026:KHC:2650( MFA(No.(7538(of(2016( C/W(MFA(No.(3106(of(2017( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

THDATED(THIS(THE(19 (DAY(OF(JANUARY,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(C(M(JOSHI( MISCELLANEOUS(FIRST(APPEAL(NO.(7538(OF(2016((MV-I)(

C/W(

MISCELLANEOUS(FIRST(APPEAL(NO.(3106(OF(2017((MV-I)(

(

IN(MFA(No.(7538/2016(

BETWEEN:(( ( M/S,UNIVERSAL,SOMPO,GENERAL,INSURANCE, COMPANY,LTD.,, ND K.V.D,TOWERS,,NO.7/3,,2 ,FLOOR,, ABOVE,BARCLAYS,FINANCE,,OPP.,100,FEET,ROAD,,, INDIRANAGAR,,BANGALORE., THROUGH,ITS,MAIN,OFFICE.,, …APPELLANT, (BY,SRI,B,PRADEEP,,ADVOCATE), , AND:( Digitallytisigned ( by0NANDINI0R 1., SRI,RUDREGOWDA,, Location: S/O,G,LOKESHWARAPPA,, HIGH0COURT NOW,AGED,ABOUT,37,YEARS,, OF NDR/AT,#,74,,2 ,MAIN,ROAD,, KARNATAKA ANUGRAHA,LAYOUT,,KODICHIKKANAHALLI,, B.G.ROAD,,BANGALORE-76., ,

2., AXIS,CARRIERS,AND,LOGISTICS,LTD.,, OVALA,VILLAGE,,NEAR,SHREERAM,HOSPITAL,, G.B.ROAD,,THANE,WEST,,THANE-400,602., (OWNER,OF,THE,CANTER,LORRY,, REG,NO,NL-01-G-6071), …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI,B,BOPANNA,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R-1;, NC:(2026:KHC:2650( MFA(No.(7538(of(2016( C/W(MFA(No.(3106(of(2017( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( ,,,,,R-2,SERVED,&,UNREPRESENTED), , , THIS,MFA,IS,FILED,U/S,173(1),OF,MV,ACT,AGAINST,THE, JUDGMENT, AND, AWARD, DATED, 20.06.2016, PASSED, IN, MVC, NO.6418/2013, ON, THE, FILE, OF, THE, X, ADDITIONAL, JUDGE,, COURT, OF, SMALL, CAUSES,, BANGALORE,, AWARDING, COMPENSATION, OF, RS.3,07,786/-, WITH, INTEREST, @, 9%, P.A.(EXCLUDING,FUTURE,MEDICAL,EXPENSES,OF,Rs.15,000/-), FROM,THE,DATE,OF,PETITION,TILL,REALIZATION.,, , IN(MFA(NO.(3106/2017, BETWEEN:, SRI,RUDREGOWDA,, S/O,G,LOKESHWARAPPA,, AGED,ABOUT,38,YEARS,, NDR/A,NO.,74.,2 ,MAIN,ROAD,, ANUGRAHA,LAYOUT,, KODICHIKKANAHALLI,,B,G,ROAD,, BANGALORE-560,076., ...APPELLANT, (BY,SRI,B,BOPANNA,,ADVOCATE), , AND:,

1., AXIS,CARRIERS,&,LOGISTICS,LTD.,, REP.,BY,ITS,MANAGER,, OVALA,VILLAGE,,NEAR,SHREERAM,HOSPITAL,, G,B,ROAD,,THANE,WEST,, THANE-400,602., (OWNER,OF,THE,VEHICLE,CANTER,LORRY,, BEARING,REGISTRATION,NO.NL-01-G-6071), ,

2., UNIVERSAL,SOMPO,GENERAL,INSURANCE,CO.,LTD.,, REPTD.,BY,ITS,MANAGER,, PLOT,NO.EL-94,,TTC,INDL,AREA,, MIDC,MAHAPE,,NEW,MUMBAI-400,701., (POLICY,COVER,NOTE,NO.USGIA0001279934, VALID,FROM,16/12/2012,TO,15/12/2013), NC:(2026:KHC:2650( MFA(No.(7538(of(2016( C/W(MFA(No.(3106(of(2017( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

3., UNIVERSAL,SOMPO,GENERAL,INSURANCE,CO.,LTD.,, REPTD.,BY,ITS,MANAGER,, KVD,TOWERS,,NO.7/3,, ND2 ,FLOOR,,ABOVE,BARCLAYS,FINANCE,, OPP.100,FEET,ROAD,,OLD,MADRAS,ROAD,, INDIRANAGAR,,BANGALORE-560,038., ...RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI,B,PRADEEP,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R-2;, ,,,,,,V/O,DATED,24.04.2018,NOTICE,TO,R-3,IS,DISPENSED,, ,,,,,,WITH;, ,,,,,,R-1,SERVED,AND,UNREPRESENTED), , ,,,,,,,THIS,MFA,IS,FILED,U/S,173(1),OF,MV,ACT,AGAINST, THE,JUDGMENT,AND,AWARD,DATED,20.06.2016,,PASSED, IN,MVC,NO.6418/2013,ON,THE,FILE,OF,THE,X,ADDITIONAL, JUDGE,,COURT,OF,SMALL,CAUSES,AND,MACT,BANGALORE, (SCCH-16),,,PARTLY,ALLOWING,THE,CLAIM,PETITION,FOR, COMPENSATION, AND, SEEKING, ENHANCEMENT, OF, COMPENSATION.,, , THESE,APPEALS,,COMING,ON,FOR,HEARING,,THIS,DAY,, JUDGMENT,WAS,DELIVERED,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,C,M,JOSHI, ORAL(JUDGMENT( , Heard, the, learned, counsel, appearing, for, the, appellant,and,the,respondent.,, , , 2., These, appeals, arise, out, of, the, judgment, and, award,in,MVC.No.6418/2013,by,the,learned,X,Additional, Judge,,Court,of,Small,Causes,(SCCH-16),,Bengaluru,dated,

20.06.2016.,,

¶3The factual matrix of the case is that on

10.09.2013 at about 05.30 a.m., while the petitioner with his family members was proceeding in a Santro Car from Havari towards Bengaluru, near Thippagondanahalli on National Highway No.4, a Canter Lorry bearing No.NL-01-G-6701 was parked on the road having no access to the moving vehicles without any indicators. The car of the petitioner dashed against the rear side of the parked lorry, resulting in the petitioner sustaining injuries. He was shifted to Ramaiah Harsha Hospital, Nelamangala and the jurisdictional Police registered a case against the driver of the cantor lorry and ultimately, filed a charge sheet against him. The petitioner approached the Tribunal seeking compensation from the owner and insurer of the lorry.

¶4The respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 are the same Insurance Company and it filed a written statement contending that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the Santro Car but not the lorry driver. It

contended that the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act were not complied by respondent No.1 and therefore, it is not liable to pay any compensation. It was also contented that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and the driver of the lorry had no driving licence and as such, its liability be absolved.

¶5On the basis of the above contentions, appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal and the petitioner was examined as PW.1. Two witnesses were examined on his behalf as PW.2 and PW.3 and Exs.P1 to 15 were marked in evidence. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents.

¶6After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal held that the negligence was on the part of the parked canter lorry and as such, it determined the compensation of Rs.3,07,786/-under following heads: SL. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN RS.) Pain and sufferings 40,000/-Attendant charges, extra nutritious food and 5,000/-

conveyance expenses Medical expenses 83,786/-Loss of income during laid of period 28,000/-Loss of future income due to permanent disability 1,21,000/-Loss of future amenities and happiness 15,000/-Future medical expenses 15,000/-

TOTAL 3,07,786/-

¶7The Tribunal also directed the Insurance Company to compensate the petitioner.

¶8Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company is in appeal before this Court in MFA.No.7538/2016 and the petitioner is before this Court in appeal in MFA.No.3106/2017.

¶9Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the notional income of the petitioner is not considered appropriately. He submit that the nature of the injuries suggests that he was unable to perform his duties and as such, the disability considered by the Tribunal is not proper and correct.

¶10Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has not considered the contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner and since it was a parked canter lorry, it was visible from quite sufficient distance and as such, the negligence was also on the part of the car driver. He submits that the compensation determined by the Tribunal is proper and correct. He also submits that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.

¶11The first aspect to be considered by this Court is 'whether there is any contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner?' The Tribunal in paragraph No.16 appreciates the evidence on record at length and comes to the conclusion that the lorry had halted on the road by occupying 05 feet space on the road and there was a duty cast upon the driver to put on the indicators whenever he parks the vehicle especially on the highway. It observes that the driver of the canter lorry had parked the vehicle without any indicators and therefore, there was negligence

on his part. This conclusion of the Tribunal is obviously based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the spot mahazar, which is at Ex.P3. It is to be noted that nothing was placed on record on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company to show that there was any negligence on the part of the petitioner. The cross-examination of the petitioner do not reveal anything which suggests that there was negligence on the part of the car driver. Therefore, when the Police papers as well as the testimony of the witnesses clearly indicate that there was negligence on the part of the lorry driver, this Court also do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusions reached by the Tribunal in this regard.

¶12Coming to the quantum of the compensation, the medical records produced before the Tribunal indicate that petitioner had sustained a comminuted fracture of 1/3rd of the right femur, cut lacerated wound on scalp and he had underwent closed reduction and internal fixation

(CRIF) and wound debridement. The petitioner had also sustained fractures in the anterior wall of the bilateral

maxillary and ethmoid sinuses with hemosinus, fracture of the nasal bone and soft tissue injury in bilateral premaxillary and perinasal regions. The discharge summary shows that he was inpatient from 10.09.2013 to

13.09.2013. It is also evident that there was a lacerated wound exposing the tibia of the left leg at mid-third. The testimony of PW.3 shows that in his opinion the disability is 28% to the left lower limb and 14% to the whole body. It is pertinent to note that the functional disability has to be assessed by the Tribunal but not the Medical Officer. The physical disability assessed by PW.3 at 28% to the left lower limb has to be translated into functional disability by the Tribunal. Obviously, the functional disability relates to the avocation of the petitioner and the relative disability that would affect him on account of the physical injuries suffered by him. The petitioner claims that he was doing milk vending business, aged about 35 years. Therefore, the functional disability assessed by the Tribunal at 9% has to be considered at 10%.

¶13The Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.7,000/- per month in the absence of any cogent proof regarding the income. The guidelines issued by the KSLSA for the purpose of settlement of the disputes before the Lok-Adalath prescribe, a notional income of Rs.8,000/- for the year 2013. Therefore, the 'loss of future income due to disability' is calculated as Rs.8,000/- X 12 X 10% X 16 = Rs.1,53,600/-. As a consequence, the 'loss of income during laid up period' for a period of four months is calculated as Rs.8,000/- X 4 = Rs.32,000/-.

¶14The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under head of 'pain and sufferings' requires enhancement to Rs.50,000/-. 'Loss of future amenities' also needs enhancement and it is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. Obviously, the petitioner requires further treatment as stated by PW.3. Hence, the same is assessed at Rs.25,000/-.

¶15The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'attendant charges, conveyance

expenses' and 'medical expenses' do not require any interference.

¶16Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the modified compensation under different heads as below:

¶17So far as the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% is concerned, it is now settled that the rate of interest shall be 6% per annum. Therefore, to that extent, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company deserves to be allowed. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for an additional PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN RS.) Loss of future income due to disability 1,53,600/- Loss of income during laid up period 32,000/- Pain and sufferings 50,000/- Loss of future amenities 25,000/- Future medical expenses 25,000/- Attendant charges, conveyance expenses and medical expenses 5,000/- Medical expenses 83,786/- 3,74,386/- 3,07,786/- TOTAL Less awarded by Tribunal

Enhancement 66,600/-

compensation of Rs.66,600/- with interest. Hence, the following: ORDER

(i) Both the appeals are allowed-in-part.

(ii) The petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,74,386/- instead of Rs.3,07,786/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit before the Tribunal excluding the interest for 'future medical expenses'.

(iii) The amount in deposit before this Court be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith.

(iv) Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal remain unaltered.

Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE

NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18