- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14291 MFA No. 2558 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2558 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, MAGANURU COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, B.D.ROAD, CHITRADURGA, NOW REP BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, NO.28, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NAGARAJA S/O NINGAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, IYYANAHALLI, KURUBARAHATTI VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 2. P.SATHISH SANNA PALAIAH, R/AT MALLAPURA VILLAGE, MEDEHALLI POST, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.T.JAGAN MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.01.2015 PASSED IN MVC Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14291 MFA No. 2558 of 2015 NO.513/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, C.J.M & MACT-III, CHITRADURGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,37,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.C.No.513/2013 dated 17.01.2015 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, C.J.M & MACT-III, Chitradurga, the appellant/Insurance Company is before this Court questioning the involvement of the vehicle as well as the compensation that is awarded. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 03.03.2013 at about 11 a.m., he was going on the left side of the NH.4, Service road, in front of Noorulla garden, at that point of time, the driver of autorikshaw came in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against him. Due to the impact, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to the Government hospital, Chitradurga and admitted as inpatient. 3. It is the case of the Insurance Company that in the cross-examination, the claimant said that he was going on the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14291 MFA No. 2558 of 2015 motor bike on the left side of the road, whereas in the claim petition, it is stated that he was going on the left side of the road. The contradiction in the case of the claimant shows that he has not come to the Court with true facts and clean hands and in spite of the same, the Tribunal had granted compensation as per the table given below: SL. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1. Pain and sufferings : Rs. 45,000/- 2. Loss of amenities : Rs. 60,000/- 3. Treatment expenses : Rs. 2,000/- 4. Loss of income during the laid up period : Rs. 30,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 1,37,000/- 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that under the head of loss of amenities, without there being any evidence with regard to the disability and without examining the doctor, the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.60,000/- which is on the higher side. It is further submitted that the Tribunal had granted interest at 9% instead of 6% p.a. As such, the same needs to be interfered by this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/ claimant submits that the Tribunal looking at the evidence on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14291 MFA No. 2558 of 2015 record had rightly granted the compensation and it was never the case of the claimant that he was walking on the road and there is no discrepancy either in the claim petition or in the evidence adduced by the claimant. As such, no interference is called for with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. First coming to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that in the claim petition, the claimant has stated that he was going on the left side and in the evidence, it is stated that he was going on the bike on the left side of the road and according to the Insurance Company, the claimant has put forth two different versions. This Court is not able to agree and appreciate the said submission. The claimant has nowhere stated that he was walking and the said argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has no legs to stand. The Tribunal had rightly held that the accident had taken place because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14291 MFA No. 2558 of 2015 7. This Court has perused the order passed by the Tribunal. The claimant has not examined the doctor. Without there being any evidence, the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards loss of amenities. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the same is on the higher side. At the same time, the Tribunal had not granted any amount towards loss of income for the laid up period. Coming to the loss of amenities, no doubt the claimant had sustained injuries and there is disability certificate, but doctor was not examined. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities instead of an amount of Rs.60,000/-. Towards attendant charges, nourishment and transport, no amount was granted. Considering the fact that he was admitted in the hospital for 15 days, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charges, nourishment and transport. 8. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14291 MFA No. 2558 of 2015 SL. No. Heads Compensation Awarded by Tribunal Compensation Awarded by this Court 1. Pain and sufferings : Rs. 45,000/- 45,000/- 2. Loss of amenities : Rs. 60,000/- 15,000/- 3. Treatment expenses : Rs. 2,000/- 2,000/- 4. Loss of income during the laid up period : Rs. 30,000/- 30,000/- 5. Attendant charges, nourishment and transport : Rs. 00/- 15,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 1,37,000/- 1,07,000/- Reduction : Rs. 30,000/- 9. Altogether, the claimant is entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.1,07,000/-. The interest is reduced from 9% p.a. to 6% p.a. 10. Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance Company is partly allowed reducing the compensation from an amount of Rs.1,37,000/- to Rs.1,07,000/-. i. The interest is reduced from 9% p.a. to 6% p.a. ii. The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transmitted to the Tribunal. iii. The appellant - insurance company shall deposit the remaining amount, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14291 MFA No. 2558 of 2015 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 MEG List No.: 3 Sl No.: 9