Sri D N Prasanna Kumar v. Sri S Gopal

e -e1e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:42171 MFA(No.(2035(of(2022 C/W(MFA(No.(356(of(2021 MFA(No.(1434(of(2021 AND(3(OTHERS CNR:(KAHC010098592022 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(6 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(RAJESH(RAI(K( MISCELLANEOUS(FIRST(APPEAL(NO.2035(OF(2022(MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS(FIRST(APPEAL(NO.(356(OF(2021((MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS(FIRST(APPEAL(NO.1434(OF(2021(MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS(FIRST(APPEAL(NO.2019(OF(2022(MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS(FIRST(APPEAL(NO.3780(OF(2022(MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS(FIRST(APPEAL(NO.3840(OF(2022(MV-I) IN(MFA(No.(2035/2022 BETWEEN:( , M/S,UNITED,INDIA,INSURANCE,COMPANY,LTD, REGIONAL,OFFICE,NO.18,,KRISHI,BHAVAN,,, TH5 ,FLOOR,,OPPOSITE,HUDSON,CIRCLE,, NRUPATHUNGA,ROAD,,BANGALORE-560,01, Digitallytisigned REPRESENTED,BY,ASSISTANT,MANAGER., by0PANKAJA0S …APPELLANT,Location:0HIGH COURT0OF (BY,SMT.,GEETHA,R,,ADVOCATE), KARNATAKA AND:

1., MR,D,C,NAGARAJ, S/O,LATE,DODDA,YALLAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,58,YEARS,, R/AT,CHIKKABANAHALLI,VILLAGE,, BIDARAHALLI,HOBLI, BANGALORE,EAST,TALUK.,

2., MR.S,GOPAL, S/O,SELLAPPA,GOUNDER,, e -e2e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:42171 MFA(No.(2035(of(2022 C/W(MFA(No.(356(of(2021 MFA(No.(1434(of(2021 AND(3(OTHERS CNR:(KAHC010098592022 MAJOR,,SELLAPPAM,PATTY,VILLAGE,, VAIKUNDAM,POST,,SANKARI,TALUK,, SALEM,DISTRICT,,TAMIL,NADU,

3., THE,NEW,INDIA,ASSURANCE,COMPANY,LTD, MOTOR,TP,HUB,,MAHALAKSHMI,CHAMBERS,, NDNO.9,,2 ,FLOOR,,M.G.ROAD,, BANGALORE-560,001.,

4., MR.PRASANNA,KUMAR, S/O,NAGARAJ,, MAJOR,, KANMANGALA,POST,, BIDARAHALLI,HOBLI,, BANGALORE,EAST,TALUK., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,GOPAL,KRISHNA,N,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1,&,R4,, ,,,,,,SRI.,B.R.,VENKATESH,KAMATH,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R3,, ,,,,,,VIDE,ORDER,DATED,14/08/2024,,NOTICE,TO,R2,IS,, ,,,,,,HELD,SUFFICIENT), , THIS,MFA,IS,FILED,U/S.173(1),OF,MV,ACT,,AGAINST,THE, JUDGMENT, AND, AWARD, DT.14.11.2019, PASSED, IN, MVC, NO.5614/2016, ON, THE, FILE, OF, THE, III, ADDITIONAL, CIVIL, JUDGE, AND, MEMBER,, MACT,, COURT, OF, SMALL, CAUSES,, BENGALURU,, (SCCH-17),, , AWARDING, COMPENSATION, OF, RS.3,96,400/-,WITH,INTEREST,AT,8,PERCENT,P.A.,FROM,THE, DATE,OF,PETITION,TILL,THE,DATE,OF,DEPOSIT., IN(MFA(NO.(356/2021 BETWEEN: , THE,NEW,INDIA,ASSURANCE,COMPANY,LIMITED, MAHALAKSHMI,CHAMBERS,,NO.9,,2ND,FLOOR,, M,G,ROAD,,BENGALURU-560001, e -e3e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:42171 MFA(No.(2035(of(2022 C/W(MFA(No.(356(of(2021 MFA(No.(1434(of(2021 AND(3(OTHERS CNR:(KAHC010098592022 REPRESENTED,BY,THE,MANAGER,, THE,NEW,INDIA,ASSURANCE,COMPANY,LIMITED,, MOTOR,THIRD,PARTY,CLIAMS,HUB,, BANGALORE, ...APPELLANT (BY,SRI.,VENKATESH,KAMATH,B.R,,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., SRI,D,N,PRASANNA,KUMAR, S/O,B,S,NAGARAJ,, AGED,ABOUT,31,YEARS,, R/AT,DODDABANAHALLI,,, KANNAMANGALA,POST,, BIDHARAHALLI,HOBALI,, BANGALORE,EAST,TALUK.,

2., SRI,S,GOPAL, S/O,SELLAPPA,GOUNDER,,MAJOR,, SELLAPPAM,PARTY,VILLAGE,, VAIKUNDAM,POST,,SANKARI,TALUK,, SALEM,DISTRICT,,TAMIL,NADU.,

3., MR,PRASANNA,KUMAR, S/O,NAGARAJ,,MAJOR,, KANNAMANGALA,POST,, BIDHARAHALLI,HOBLI,, BANGALORE,EAST,TALUK.,

4., THE,UNITED,INDIA,INSURANCE,CO,LTD, REGIONAL,OFFICE,NO.18,, KRISHI,BHAVAN,,5TH,FLOOR,, OPP,HUDSON,CIRCLE,, NRUPATHUNGA,ROAD,, BANGALORE-560001, ...RESPONDENTS (BY,SRI.,GOPAL,KRISHNA,N,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1,, ,,,,,,SMT.,GEETHA,R,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R4,, e -e4e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:42171 MFA(No.(2035(of(2022 C/W(MFA(No.(356(of(2021 MFA(No.(1434(of(2021 AND(3(OTHERS CNR:(KAHC010098592022 ,,,,,,VIDE,ORDER,DATED,14/08/2024,,NOTICE,TO,R2,IS,, ,,,,,,HELD,SUFFICIENT), ,,,,,,,THIS,MFA,IS,FILED,U/S.173(1),OF,MV,ACT,,AGAINST, THE, JUDGMENT, AND, AWARD, DT.14.11.2019, PASSED, IN, MVC,NO.5615/2016,ON,THE,FILE,OF,THE,III,ADDITIONAL, CIVIL, JUDGE, AND, MEMBER,, MACT,, COURT, OF, SMALL, CAUSES,, BENGALURU,, (SCCH-17),, AWARDING, COMPENSATION, OF, RS.3,87,800/-, WITH, INTEREST, AT, 8, PERCENT, P.A., FROM, THE, DATE, OF, PETITION, TILL, THE, DATE,OF,DEPOSIT., IN(MFA(NO.(1434/2021 BETWEEN: , THE,NEW,INDIA,ASSURANCE,COMPANY,LIMITED, MAHALAKSHMI,CHAMBERS,,NO.9,,2ND,FLOOR, M,G,ROAD,,BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED,BY,THE,MANAGER, THE,NEW,INDIA,ASSURACE,COMPANY,LIMITED, MOTOR,THIRD,PARTY,CLAIMS,HUB, BANGALORE, ...APPELLANT (BY,SRI.,B.R,VENKATESH,KAMATH,,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., MR,D,C,NAGARAJ, S/O,LATE,DODDA,YALLAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,56,YEARS, R/A,CHIKKABANAHALLI,VILLAGE, BIDHARAHALLI,HOBALI, BANGALORE,EAST,TALUK,

2., SRI,S,GOPAL, e -e5e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:42171 MFA(No.(2035(of(2022 C/W(MFA(No.(356(of(2021 MFA(No.(1434(of(2021 AND(3(OTHERS CNR:(KAHC010098592022 S/O,SELLAPPA,GOUNDER,,MAJOR, SELLAPPAM,PATTY,VILLAGE, VAIKUNDAM,,POST,,SANKARI,TALUK, SALEM,DISTRICT,,TAMIL,NADU,

3., MR,PRASANNA,KUMAR, S/O,NAGARAJ,,MAJOR, KANNAMANGALA,POST, BIDHARAHALLI,HOBLI, BANGALORE,EAST,TALUK,

4., THE,UNITED,INDIA,INSURANCE,CO,LTD, REGIONAL,OFFICE,NO.18, THKRISHI,BHAVAN,,5 ,,FLOOR, OPP,HUDSON,CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA,ROAD, BANGALORE-560001, ...RESPONDENTS (BY,SRI.,GOPAL,KRISHNA,N,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1,, ,,,,,,SMT.,GEETHA,R,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R4,, ,,,,,,NOTICE,TO,R2,AND,R3,ARE,SERVED,AND,, ,,,,,,UNREPRESENTED), ,,,,,,THIS,MFA,IS,FILED,U/S,173(1),OF,MV,ACT,AGAINST, THE, JUDGMENT, AND, AWARD, DATED, 14.11.2019, PASSED, IN, MVC, NO., 5614/2016, ON, THE, FILE, OF, THE, III, ADDITIONAL,CIVIL,JUDGE,AND,MEMBER,,MACT,,COURT,OF, SMALL, CAUSES,, BENGALURU,, SCCH-17,, , AWARDING, COMPENSATION, OF, RS.3,96,400/-, WITH, INTEREST, AT, 8, PERCENT, P.A., , FROM, THE, DATE, OF, PETITION, TILL, THE, DATE,OF,DEPOSIT., IN(MFA(NO.(2019/2022 BETWEEN: , M/S,UNITED,INDIA,INSURANCE,COMPANY,LTD, REGIONAL,OFFICE,NO.18,,KRISHI,BHAVAN,, TH5 ,FLOOR,,OPPOSITE,HUDSON,CIRCLE,, e -e6e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:42171 MFA(No.(2035(of(2022 C/W(MFA(No.(356(of(2021 MFA(No.(1434(of(2021 AND(3(OTHERS CNR:(KAHC010098592022 NRUPATHUNGA,ROAD,,BANGALORE-560,01, REPRESENTED,BY,,K.G.GHIMIRAJ, REGIONAL,MANAGER., ...APPELLANT (BY,SMT.,GEETHA,R,,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., MR,D,N,PRASANNA,KUMAR, S/O,B.S.,NAGARAJ, AGED,34,YEARS,, R/AT,DODDABANAHALLI,VILLAGE,, KANNAMANGALA,POST,, BIDARAHALLI,HOBLI,, BANGALORE,EAST,TALUK.,

2., MR.S,GOPAL, S/O,SELLAPPA,GOUNDER,, MAJOR,,SELLAPPAM,PATTY,VILLAGE,, VAIKUNDAM,POST,,SANKARI,TALUK,, SALEM,DISTRICT,,TAMIL,NADU.,

3., THE,NEW,INDIA,ASSURANCE,COMPANY,LTD.,, MOTOR,TP,HUB,MAHALAKSHMI,CHAMBERS,, NO.9,,2ND,FLOOR,,M.G.ROAD,,, BANGALORE-560,001.,

4., MR.PRASANNA,KUMAR, S/O,NAGARAJ,,MAJOR,, KANNAMANGALA,POST,, BIDARAHALLI,HOBLI,, BANGALORE,EAST,TALUK., ...RESPONDENTS (BY,SRI.,GOPAL,KRISHNA,N,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1,, ,,,,,,SRI.,B.R.,VENKATESH,KAMATH,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R3,, ,,,,,,NOTICE,TO,R2,AND,R4,ARE,SERVED,AND,, ,,,,,,UNREPRESENTED), e -e7e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:42171 MFA(No.(2035(of(2022 C/W(MFA(No.(356(of(2021 MFA(No.(1434(of(2021 AND(3(OTHERS CNR:(KAHC010098592022 ,,,,,,THIS,MFA,IS,FILED,U/S,173(1),OF,MV,ACT,AGAINST, THE,JUDGMENT,AND,AWARD,DATED,14.11.2019,,,PASSED, IN, MVC, NO.5615/2016, , ON, THE, FILE, OF, THE, III, ADDITIONAL,CIVIL,JUDGE,AND,MEMBER,,MACT,,COURT,OF, SMALL, CAUSES,, BENGALURU, (SCCH-17),,,, AWARDING, COMPENSATION, OF, RS., 3,87,800/-, WITH, INTEREST,AT,8,PERCENT,P.A.(FUTURE,MEDICAL,EXPENSES, DOES, NOT, CARRY, ANY, INTEREST), , FROM, THE, DATE, OF, PETITIONS,,TILL,THE,DATE,OF,DEPOSIT., IN(MFA(NO.(3780/2022 BETWEEN: , SRI,D,C,NAGARAJ, S/O,LATE,DODDA,YALLAPPA, NOW,AGED,ABOUT,37,YEARS, RESIDING,AT,, CHIKKABANAHALLI,VILLAGE, BIDARANAHALLI,HOBLI, BENGALURU,EAST,TALUK, ...APPELLANT (BY,SRI.,GOPAL,KRISHNA,N,,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., SRI,S,GOPAL, S/O,SELLAPPA,GOUNDER,, MAJOR,BY,AGE, RESIDING,AT,, SELLAPPAM,PATTY,VILLAGE, VAIKUNDAM,POST, SANKARI,TALUK, SALEM,DISTRICT-637301,

2., THE,NEW,INDIA,ASSURANCE,, COMPANY,LIMITED, MOTOR,TP,HUB, e -e8e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:42171 MFA(No.(2035(of(2022 C/W(MFA(No.(356(of(2021 MFA(No.(1434(of(2021 AND(3(OTHERS CNR:(KAHC010098592022 MAHALAKSHMI,CHAMBERS, NDNO.9,,2 ,FLOOR,,M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU,-,560,001, REP.BY,ITS,MANAGER,

3., SRI,PRASANNA,KUMAR, S/O,NAGARAJ, MAJOR,BY,AGE, RESIDING,AT,KANNAMANGALA,POST, BIDARAHALLI,HOBLI, BENGALURU,EAST,TALUK,-,560,067,

4., UNITED,INDIA,INSURANCE,, COMPANY,LIMITED, REGIONAL,OFFICE, NO,18,,KRISHI,BHAVANA, TH5 ,FLOOR,OPP:,HUDSON,CIRCLE, NRUPATUNGA,ROAD, BENGALURU,-,560,001, REP,BY,ITS,MANAGER, ...RESPONDENTS (BY,SRI.,B.R.,VENKATESH,KAMATH,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2,, ,,,,,,SMT.,GEETHA,R,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R4,, ,,,,,,NOTICE,TO,R1,IS,SERVED,AND,UNREPRESENTED,, ,,,,,,VIDE,ORDER,DATED,13.11.2022,,NOTICE,TO,R3,IS,, ,,,,,,DISPENSED,WITH), ,,,,,,,THIS,MFA,IS,FILED,U/S.173(1),OF,MV,ACT,,AGAINST, THE, JUDGMENT, AND, AWARD, DT.14.11.2019, PASSED, IN, MVC,NO.5614/2016,ON,THE,FILE,OF,THE,III,ADDITIONAL, CIVIL, JUDGE, AND, MEMBER,, MACT,, COURT, OF, SMALL, CAUSES,, BENGALURU,, (SCCH-17),, , , PARTLY, ALLOWING, THE,CLAIM,PETITION,FOR,COMPENSATION,AND,SEEKING, ENHANCEMENT,OF,COMPENSATION., e -e9e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:42171 MFA(No.(2035(of(2022 C/W(MFA(No.(356(of(2021 MFA(No.(1434(of(2021 AND(3(OTHERS CNR:(KAHC010098592022 IN(MFA(NO.(3840/2022 BETWEEN: , SRI,D,N,PRASANNA,KUMAR, S/O,B.S.,NAGARAJ, NOW,AGED,ABOUT,37,YEARS, RESIDING,AT, DODDABANAHALLI,VILLAGE,, KANNAMANGALA,POST,, BIDARAHALLI,HOBLI,, BENGALURU,EAST,TALUK., ...APPELLANT (BY,SRI.,GOPAL,KRISHNA,N,,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., SRI,S,GOPAL, S/O,SELLAPPA,GOUNDE, MAJOR,BY,AGE,, RESIDING,AT,, SELLAPPAM,PATTY,VILLAGE,, VAIKUNDAM,POST,, SANKARI,TALUK,, SALEM,DISTRICT-637301.,

2., THE,NEW,INDIA,ASSURANCE,, COMPANY,LTD.,, MOTOR,TP,HUB,, MAHALAKSHMI,CHAMBERS,, NDNO.9,,2 ,FLOOR,,M.G.,ROAD,, BENGALURU-560001., REP.,BY,ITS,MANAGER.,

3., UNITED,INDIA,INSURANCE,COMPANY,LTD.,, REGIONAL,OFFICE,, NO.18,,KRISHI,BHAVANA,, TH5 ,FLOOR,,OPP.,HUDSON,CIRCLE,, NRUPATHUNGA,ROAD,, e -e10e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:42171 MFA(No.(2035(of(2022 C/W(MFA(No.(356(of(2021 MFA(No.(1434(of(2021 AND(3(OTHERS CNR:(KAHC010098592022 BENGALURU,-560001., REP.,BY,ITS,MANAGER., ...RESPONDENTS (BY,SRI.,B.R.,VENKATESH,KAMATH,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2,, ,,,,,,SMT.,GEETHA,R,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R3,, ,,,,,,NOTICE,TO,R1,IS,SERVED,AND,UNREPRESENTED), ,,,,,,,THIS,MFA,IS,FILED,U/S.173(1),OF,MV,ACT,,AGAINST, THE, JUDGMENT, AND, AWARD, DT.14.11.2019, PASSED, IN, MVC,NO.5615/2016,ON,THE,FILE,OF,THE,XIX,ADDITIONAL, JUDGE,, MACT,, BENGALURU,, (SCCH-17),, , PARTLY, ALLOWING,THE,CLAIM,PETITION,FOR,COMPENSATION,AND, SEEKING,ENHANCEMENT,OF,COMPENSATION., , THESE, APPEALS,, COMING, ON, FOR, ADMISSION,, THIS, DAY,,JUDGMENT,WAS,DELIVERED,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,RAJESH,RAI,K, ORAL(JUDGMENT

¶1These, six, appeals, are, directed, against, the, common, judgment, dated, 14.11.2019, passed, in, MVC.Nos.5614, &, 5615/2016,by,the,Tribunal.,

¶2The,factual,matrix,of,the,case,is,that,,on,17.03.2016,at, about, 2.20, p.m.,, when, the, claimant, in, MVC.No.5614/2016, namely, D.C.Nagaraj,, traveling, in, a, car, bearing, registration, No.KA-53-MA-2057,being,driven,by,its,owner,i.e.,,claimant,in, MVC.No.5615/2016,namely,D.N.Prasanna,Kumar,,reached,near, Kammasandra, village,, Hosakote-Devanahalli, Road,, Hosakote,,

the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-52-F-4464 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car. As a result of which, the claimants suffered grievous injuries. As such, they filed aforesaid claim petitions claiming compensation for the injuries suffered in a road traffic accident.

¶3The Tribunal, on assessment of both oral and documentary evidence, has awarded a sum of Rs.3,96,400/- as compensation in MVC.No.5614/2016 and a sum of Rs.3,87,800/- as compensation in MVC.No.5615/2016 attributing contributory negligence at 50 : 50 on the driver of both the vehicles i.e., the car and the lorry and consequently, saddling 50% liability on the insurer of both the car and the lorry to make good the compensation. However, in respect of insurer of the car, liberty was granted to recover the same from the owner of the car.

¶4Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, two batches of appeals were filed, one batch is by the claimant, insurer of the car and the insurer of the lorry in MVC.No.5614/2016 i.e., MFA.3780/2022, MFA.2035/2022 and MFA.1434/2021 respectively and the other batch is by the claimant, insurer of

the car and the insurer of the lorry in MVC.No.5615/2016 i.e., MFA.3840/2022, MFA.2019/2022 and MFA.356/2021 respectively.

¶5Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.

¶6Learned counsel for the insurer of the car would contend that the Tribunal has erred in attributing 50% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car solely relying on the charge sheet Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 - spot sketch. According to her, immediately after the accident, a complaint came to be lodged by one Krishnappa as per Ex.P2, wherein he has categorically stated that the accident had occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the lorry. Thereafter, in the inquest panchanama - Ex.R15, the statement of the relatives of the claimants would also reveal that the accident occurred due to the negligence driver of the lorry. Further, the wound certificate of the injured claimant in MVC.No.5614/2016 - Ex.P7 would also reveal that he sustained injuries while travelling in a four wheeler knocked down by lorry. The discharge summary - Ex.P9 also depicts that the accident was due to the sole

negligence of the driver of the lorry. Further, the spot mahazar at Ex.P4 reveals that the driver of the lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car. Despite all these documents, the investigation officer - RW.2 laid charge sheet against the driver of the car. Moreover, either the owner of the lorry or the insurer of the lorry has examined the driver of the lorry to rebut the documents. In such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have saddled entire negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. Notwithstanding, this contention she would also contend that since the driver of the car was not possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident and he being the owner of the car and since it is a third party insurance, the insurer is not liable to make good the compensation by way of pay and recovery as held by the Tribunal. She would also contend that the Tribunal has erred in awarding exorbitant compensation in both the cases. With these submissions, she prays to allow the appeals of the insurer of the car.

¶7On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurer of the lorry would contend that the Tribunal was not justified in

saddling 50% negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. By placing reliance on Ex.P5 - rough sketch of the spot, he would contend that the lorry was proceeding from south to north i.e., Hoskote to Sulibele and the accident had occurred on the extreme left western side of the road, which would reveal that the lorry was proceeding in the right direction, whereas the car, which came from north to south i.e., Sulibele to Hoskote i.e., opposite direction, moved to the extreme right side of the road and dashed against the lorry. The said aspect of the matter has been further clarified in the spot mahazar and even the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the car. According to him, the complaint was lodged by the relative of the claimant and that during the course of inquest mahazar, the relative of the injured stated that the accident had occurred due to the negligent driving of the lorry, however, the relatives of the claimant were not the eye witnesses to the accident and only to overcome the aspect that the driver of the car was not possessing valid driving licence, they had stated as such. He also relied on the evidence of RW.2 - investigation officer, who categorically stated in his evidence that the accident occurred

due to the negligent driving of the car. Hence, he would contend that the Tribunal ought to have attributed entire negligence on the driver of the car and saddled entire liability on the insurer of the car to make good the compensation. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeals of the insurer of the lorry.

¶8Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the Tribunal was not justified in awarding meagre compensation and accordingly, would pray for allowing of the appeal of the claimants by enhancing the compensation.

¶9I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.

¶10As could be gathered from records, the occurrence of the accident and the coverage of insurance policy to both the vehicle involved in the accident are not in dispute.

¶11The Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence both oral and documentary attributed 50% negligence on the driver of both the vehicles and consequently, saddled liability on the insurer

of both the car and the lorry. I have carefully examined the investigation documents, so also the evidence of RW.2 - Investigation Officer. Immediately after the accident, a complaint was lodged by one Krishnappa who is the relative of the claimant as per Ex.P2. In the said complaint, it is stated that the accident had occurred due to the negligence driving of the lorry. Accordingly, FIR came to be registered against the driver of the lorry. Immediately, thereafter inquest mahazar was conducted as per Ex.R15 and the Investigation Officer has recorded the statement of the relatives of the claimant, who reiterated the version of the complainant. However, thereafter, the Investigation Officer visited the spot and prepared a rough sketch as per Ex.P5 and the spot mahazar Ex.P4. On careful scrutiny of Ex.P5, it can be noticed that the lorry was proceeding from south to north i.e., Hoskote to Sulibele and the accident had occurred on the extreme left western side of the road, which would reveal that the lorry was proceeding in the right direction, whereas the car, which came from north to south i.e., Sulibele to Hoskote i.e., opposite direction, moved to the extreme right side of the road and dashed against the lorry.

Moreover, the spot mahazar depicts that on the western side footpath there were tyre marks of the lorry and beside the footpath there was a pit. Though the contents of Ex.P4 - spot mahazar depicts that the accident caused due to negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, the rough sketch is quite contrary to the contents of Ex.P4. Moreover, RW.2 - Investigation Officer, who was examined on behalf of the insurer, had stated in the cross-examination that - "it is not correct to suggest that the accident has taken place due to the negligence of lorry driver" and "it is not correct to suggest that he has not conducted the investigation properly and had filed false charge sheet". This evidence of RW.2 - Investigation Officer corroborates with Ex.P5 - spot sketch and Ex.P3 - charge sheet. Further, on perusal of Ex.P6 - MVA report, it is seen that the front portion of both the vehicles were damaged substantially due to head on collision. As discussed supra, one part of the investigation reveals that the accident had occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and the other part of the investigation reveals that the accident had occurred due to the negligent driving of driver of the car. In

such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal was justified in attributing 50:50 negligence on the driver of both the vehicles and consequently, saddling 50% liability on the insurer of both the vehicles. As such, I find no good ground to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal and the same is affirmed.

¶12As regards liability of the insurer of the car, the Tribunal directed the insurer of the car to deposit the compensation and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the car as there is violation of policy conditions. Since there is violation of policy conditions, I am of the considered opinion that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanjappa & Others (2004) 13 SCC 224, the Tribunal was justified in recording the said finding. As such, the said finding is affirmed.

¶13However, learned counsel for the insurer of the car would contend that since the driver of the car being its owner and the insurance policy of the said car being third party insurance, the insurer is not liable to make good the compensation in respect of claimant in MVC.No.5615/2016 and as such, she would pray

for refund of amount deposited in the said case. In view of the policy of the car being third party insurance, I am of the view that the insurer would not be liable to make good the compensation in respect of claimant in MVC.No.5615/2016. As such, the amount deposited in the said case is directed to be refunded to the insurer of the car. However, in respect of compensation payable to the claimant in MVC.No.5614/2016, it is made clear that the insurer of the car is liable to deposit its portion of the compensation amount and thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the car.

¶14As regards the award of interest at 8% p.a., as contended by the learned counsel for the insurer of both the vehicles that in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ms. Joyeeta Bose and others vs. Venkateshan V., and others in M.F.A.No.5896/2018, wherein it is held that 6% interest has to be awarded for the compensation in the Motor Accident Claims, the interest awarded in the instant case is reduced to 6% p.a.

AS REGARDS QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION: IN MFA.No.3780/2022:

¶15The Tribunal, on assessment of evidence, has awarded the following sums as compensation: Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.)

¶1Pain and suffering 45,000/-

¶2Loss of amenities 20,000/-

¶3Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 5,000/-

¶4Medical expenses 1,37,400/-

¶5Loss of future income 1,48,000/-

¶6Loss of income during laid up period 21,000/-

¶7Future medical expenses 20,000/-Total 3,96,400/-

¶16The Tribunal, on analysis of medical evidence, has concluded that the claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 16% to the whole body.

¶17I have perused the evidence of the Doctor - PW.3 and the wound certificate. The same depicts that the claimant has sustained posterior wall fracture of the right acetabulum and has also underwent surgery with ORIF with 9 holed acetabular recon plate and one cannulated cancellous screws.

¶18Since the Doctor has assessed the disability of 58% to the right lower limb and 19% to the whole body, it would be just and appropriate to assess the disability at 19%.

¶19The Tribunal has determined the monthly income, notionally at Rs.7,000/-. Since there is credible documentary evidence to ascertain the actual monthly income, it would be appropriate and prudent to adopt the monthly income determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which, for the accident of the year 2016, would be Rs.9,500/-.

¶20As the claimant was aged about 52 years, a multiplier of '11' would have to be applied. Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,38,260/- (9,500 x 12 x 11

x 19%) towards 'loss of future income' as against Rs.1,48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶21Consequently, the amount of Rs.21,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of income during the laid up period' would also stand enhanced to Rs.28,500/- (Rs.9,500 X 3 months) treating the laid up period as three months.

¶22Having regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards 'pain and agony' as against Rs.45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶23Having regard to the lasting effects of the injuries on the claimant, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and nourishment, as against the sum of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶24The sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards 'Conveyance and attendant charges' and Rs.20,000/- awarded towards 'future medical expenses' by the Tribunal, being just and proper, stand affirmed.

¶25The sum of Rs.1,37,400/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, being based on documentary evidence, is affirmed.

¶26Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and the claimant would be entitled to the following compensation: Sl. N o. Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) As awarded by this Court (Rs.)

¶1Pain and suffering 45,000 50,000

¶2Loss of amenities 20,000 30,000

¶3Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 5,000 5,000

¶4Medical expenses 1,37,400 1,37,400

¶5Loss of future income 1,48,000 2,38,260

¶6Loss of income during laid up period 21,000 28,500

¶7Future medical expenses 20,000 20,000 Total 3,96,400 5,09,160

¶27Thus, the claimant is held entitled to the total compensation of Rs.5,09,160/- as against Rs.3,96,400/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum instead of 8% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶28The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. IN MFA.No.3840/2022:

¶29The Tribunal, on assessment of evidence, has awarded the following sums as compensation: Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.)

¶1Pain and suffering 45,000

¶2Loss of amenities 20,000

¶3Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 5,000

¶4Medical expenses 75,200

¶5Loss of future income 2,01,600

¶6Loss of income during laid up period 21,000

¶7Future medical expenses 20,000 Total 3,87,800

¶30The Tribunal, on analysis of medical evidence, has concluded that the claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 16% to the whole body.

¶31I have perused the evidence of the Doctor - PW.4 and the wound certificate. The same depicts that the claimant has sustained right comminuted humeral head intra articular fracture and has also underwent surgery with ORIF plate and screws.

¶32Since the Doctor has assessed the disability at 60% to the arm and 20% to the whole body, I deem it just and appropriate to assess the disability at 18%.

¶33The Tribunal has determined the monthly income, notionally at Rs.7,000/-. Since there is credible documentary evidence to ascertain the actual monthly income, it would be appropriate and prudent to adopt the monthly income determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which, for the accident of the year 2016, would be Rs.9,500/-.

¶34As the claimant was aged about 36 years, a multiplier of '15' would have to be applied. Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.3,07,800/- (9,500 x 12 x 15

x 18%) towards 'loss of future income' as against Rs.2,01,600/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶35Consequently, the amount of Rs.21,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of income during the laid up period' would also stand enhanced to Rs.28,500/- (Rs.9,500 X 3 months) treating the laid up period as three months.

¶36Having regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards 'pain and agony' as against Rs.45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶37Having regard to the lasting effects of the injuries on the claimant, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities, as against the sum of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶38The sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards 'Conveyance and attendant charges' and Rs.20,000/- awarded towards 'future medical expenses' by the Tribunal, being just and proper, stand affirmed.

¶39The sum of Rs.75,200/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, being based on documentary evidence, is affirmed.

¶40Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and the claimant would be entitled to the following compensation: Sl. N o. Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) As awarded by this Court (Rs.)

¶1Pain and suffering 45,000 50,000

¶2Loss of amenities 20,000 30,000

¶3Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 5,000 5,000

¶4Medical expenses 75,200 75,200

¶5Loss of future income 2,01,600 3,07,800

¶6Loss of income during laid up period 21,000 28,500

¶7Future medical expenses 20,000 20,000 Total 3,87,800 5,16,500

¶41Thus, the claimant is held entitled to the total compensation of Rs.5,16,500/- as against Rs.3,87,800/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum instead of 8% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶42The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶43The amount in deposit in the appeals of the insurer shall be transferred to the concerned Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed in part. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11