- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13687 MFA No. 411 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 6720 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 411 OF 2016 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6720 OF 2015 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 411/2016 BETWEEN: SRI. GIRISH S/O K.RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, C/O SIDDARAJU BUILDING, SIDDANAHAHOSAHALLI BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE. PERMANENT ADDRESS KALUVARAHALLI, HOSUR POST, SIRA TALUKA, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.KALYAN R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SRI G. BYREGOWDA S/O B.S.GANGE BYRAPPA, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO. 3, LAKSHMIDEVI NILAYA, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13687 MFA No. 411 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 6720 of 2015 BHUVENESHWARI NAGAR, HESSARAGHATTA ROAD, T.DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 057 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 V/O/D 30/11/2017- NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.5130/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, 16TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 6720/2015 BETWEEN: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX BANGALORE BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO. 44/45, 4TH FLOOR LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX RESIDENCY ROAD BANGALORE-560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER ...APPELLANT (BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GIRISH S/O K.RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS C/O SIDDARAJU BUILDING SIDDANAHOSAHALLI BANGALORE NORTH-560 049 PERMANENT ADDRESS: KALUVARAHALLI, HOSUR POST, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DIST-581 401 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13687 MFA No. 411 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 6720 of 2015 2. G.BYREGOWDA S/O B.S. GANGE BYRAPPA NO. 3, LAKSHMIDEVI NILAYA BHUVANESHWARINAGAR HESARGHATTA ROAD T. DASARAHALLI BANGALORE-560 057 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAGHAVENDRA M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.KALYAN R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 V/O/D 27/11/2017- SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 H/S) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.5130/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 16TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.2,60,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ‘DISMISSAL’, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed in MVC.No.5130/2013 dated 02.07.2015 by the XVI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member MACT, Bengaluru, both the insurance company as well as the claimant are before this Court. The insurance company has filed MFA.No.6720/2015 and the claimant has filed MFA.No.411/2016. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13687 MFA No. 411 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 6720 of 2015 2. It is the case of the claimant that the claimant was aged 20 years, working as a courier delivery boy and was getting monthly income of Rs.8,000/- per month. On 02.09.2013 at about 12.45 p.m., the claimant was standing near Madanayakanahalli bus stop to cross the other side of NH- 4 Bangalore-Tumkur road to go to Siddanahosahalli, carefully and cautiously. At that time, scooter ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, neglecting all the traffic rules and regulations came and dashed against the claimant. Due to the impact, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The insurance company has resisted the claim. It is the case of the insurance company that the respondent No.1 has denied the liability to indemnify respondent No.2 and to compensate the claimant on the ground that the policy issued in favour of respondent No.2 was a “Long Term Act Only Policy”, that it was valid till expiry of fitness certificate or till cancellation of the registration certificate, that the registration certificate/fitness certificate of the said vehicle was valid till 12.01.2010 and therefore, the policy is deemed to have been cancelled before the accident and he is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. In - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13687 MFA No. 411 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 6720 of 2015 that regard, they have examined RW.1-Sudheendra, the ARTO, Rajajinagar and RW.2-Anushree, the administrative officer of respondent No.1 and marked Exs.R1 to 4. The Tribunal had observed that the policy issued by respondent No.1 is valid till cancellation of registration and not till expiry of the fitness certificate. Evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 and contents of Exs.R1 to 4 are not sufficient to hold that the registration certificate of the scooter was ever cancelled and accordingly, the Tribunal had granted the compensation and held that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. 3. Basing on the evidence, the Tribunal had granted the compensation as per the table given below: Heads Compensation Awarded 1. Pain and Suffering : Rs. 50,000/- 2. Medical expenses : Rs. 43,000/- 3. Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges : Rs. 10,000/- 4. Loss of income during laid up period : Rs. 18,000/- 5. Loss of future income : Rs. 1,04,000/- 6. Loss of amenities : Rs. 25,000/- 7. Future medical expenses : Rs. 10,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 2,60,000/- - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13687 MFA No. 411 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 6720 of 2015 4. Altogether the Tribunal had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.2,60,000/-. Aggrieved thereby the appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that as it is a “Long term act only policy” and it was valid till expiry of the fitness certificate and in this case, it was valid till 12.01.2010 as such the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel further submits that even under the heads of compensation also the amount that was awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and the same needs to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that when the insurance company is saying that it is a long- term policy and it was valid till the expiry of the fitness certificate or till the cancellation of registration certificate. They have failed to examine the concerned and they have failed to elicit the same. Learned counsel had relied on the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of United India - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13687 MFA No. 411 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 6720 of 2015 Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Lakshmamma and others 1 wherein the Court had held that: “The very contention of the Insurance Company that merely because of non- renewal of the R.C. the liability cannot be fastened on them cannot be accepted. Apart from that, in the evidence of the Insurance Company, the witness who has been examined as R.W.1 also categorically admitted that registration certificate is not cancelled. On perusal of Ex.R2 also, it is very clear that the liability is till the cancellation of RC and explicit contract between the insured and the insurer is till the cancellation of the policy and since no policy is cancelled, the very contention of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted”. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the Tribunal had rightly held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and in the light of the order passed in United India Insurance Co. Ltd’s case referred supra, still the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation as there is a valid insurance policy. Then, coming to the compensation, he submits that the Tribunal ought not to 1 MFA.No.5702/2016 C/w MFA.No.3621/2016 dated 14.12.2022 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13687 MFA No. 411 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 6720 of 2015 have taken the income at Rs.6,000/- per month. According to him, he is earning an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month. Considering the disability at 8% is also on the lower side. 8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. In the light of the law laid down in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. referred supra, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. It is submitted that the Tribunal had granted interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Accordingly, the same is reduced to 6% per annum. 9. Coming to the compensation, under the head of pain and sufferings, considering that the claimant had sustained one grievous injury and he was in hospital for the period of seven days, this Court is reducing the same to an amount of Rs.40,000/-. There is no dispute with regard to the medical expenses. Towards nourishment, attendant, conveyance and transport charges, the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.10,000/-. When he was in hospital for the period of seven days and the same is reduced to Rs.7,000/-. Coming to the loss of income during laid up - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13687 MFA No. 411 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 6720 of 2015 period, as this is an accident of the year 2013, as per the chart prepared by the Legal Services Authority, this Court is inclined to take the income at an amount of Rs.8,000/- and for 3 months it would come to an amount of (8,000X3)=Rs.24,000/-. Towards Loss of future income as the Tribunal had taken the income at amount of Rs.8,000/- per month. Coming to the disability, according to the doctor, the disability of the limbs is 24% and 12% to the whole body. The Tribunal had rightly taken 8%, then the loss of future income would come to (8000X12X18X8/100)= Rs.1,38,240/-. Towards loss of amenities, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.30,000/-. Towards future medical expenses, no interference is called for. 10. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M. MALATHI AND ANOTHER2, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Legal Expenses. 11. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: 2 (2014) 11 SCC 178 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13687 MFA No. 411 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 6720 of 2015 Heads Compensation Awarded by Tribunal Compensation Awarded by this Court 1. Pain and Suffering : Rs. 50,000/- 40,000/- 2. Medical expenses : Rs. 43,000/- 43,000/- 3. Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges : Rs. 10,000/- 7,000/- 4. Loss of income during laid up period : Rs. 18,000/- 24,000/- 5. Loss of future income : Rs. 1,04,000/- 1,38,240/- 6. Loss of amenities : Rs. 25,000/- 30,000/- 7. Future medical expenses : Rs. 10,000/- 10,000/- 8. Legal expenses : Rs. - 10,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 2,60,000/- 3,02,240/- Enhanced compensation : Rs. Rs.42,240/- All together, the claimant is entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.3,02,240/-. Accordingly, MFA.No.411/2016 filed by the claimant is Allowed-in-part by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- to Rs.3,02,240/-. The compensation amount shall be paid by the insurance company. Accordingly, MFA.No.6720/2015 filed by the insurance company is Allowed-in-part by reducing the interest from the rate of 9% to 6% per annum. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13687 MFA No. 411 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 6720 of 2015 i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ii) The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the Tribunal. iii) The insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security. iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. v) No costs. vi) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6