- 1 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE14H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.188 OF2017(MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.637 OF2018(MV-I) IN M.F.A. No.188 OF2017BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MOTOR ROYAL INSURANCE BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, 14-5, TATA ROAD, MUMBAI. NOW REP. BY REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, NO.144, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. . VIJAY PRAVEEN CUTINHA, S/O. RAYMOND CUTINHA, AGED ABOUT25YEARS, R/O. PADIGUDDE, AMBLAMOGARU POST, MANGALURU POST-575 001. 2 . PRASHANTH S/O. ANNU MADIVALA, AGED ABOUT34YEARS, R/O. IRKI HOUSE, - 2 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 RAMA KUNJA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK-574 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GURUPRASAD B.R. FOR R1; R-2 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S1731) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED2206.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1723/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC, MANGALURU, D.K., AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.7,12,095/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN M.F.A.NO.637 OF2018BETWEEN: MR. VIJAY PRAVEEN CUTINHA, S/O. RAYMOND CUTINHA, AGED ABOUT26YEARS, R/O. PADIGUDDE, AMBLAMOGARU POST, MANGALURU-575 001. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI GURUPRASAD B R, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. . PRASHANTH, S/O ANNU MADIVALA, AGED ABOUT35YEARS, R/O. IRKI HOUSE, RAMA KUNJA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK-574 241. 2 . NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MOTOR ROYAL INSURANCE BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, 14-5, TATA ROAD, - 3 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 MUMBAI-400 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S1731) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED2206/2016, PASSED IN MVC.NO.1723/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., MANGALURU, D.K. PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING AT KALABURAGI, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the judgment and the award passed by the learned III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Mangaluru, D.K. in MVC.No.1723/2012 dated 22.06.2016, the respondent No.2-National Insurance Company Limited as well as the petitioner have approached this Court in appeal.
2. The brief facts are as below: That on 05.07.2012 at about 3.00 p.m., when the petitioner was proceeding to the work site as per the direction of the employer, from Falneer towards Adyaru in - 4 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 Tata Magic Tempo bearing No.KA-21-N-2148, the said tempo was driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and at Adyarukatte on NH-75 dashed to the hind side of the bus bearing No.KA-19-D-4505. Due to the said impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and immediately shifted to Father Muller Hospital. The Petitioner was admitted as inpatient in the hospital from 05.07.2012 to 01.08.2012. The petitioner was discharged from the hospital with an advice to take bed rest and follow up treatment. The petitioner had spent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for medical expenses and further requires Rs.50,000/- for future medical expenses. The petitioner was hale and healthy at the time of accident and aged about 20 years. The petitioner was working as an electrician under the respondent No.1 and earning a salary of Rs.12,000/- p.m. The entire family depended on his earning and due to fracture, now it is difficult to lift heavy objects, to walk, bend, squat and stand for long time. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the tempo driver. The driver was in the course - 5 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 of employment under respondent No.1 and also his agent. The respondent No.2 being the insurer is liable to pay the compensation.
3. After service of notice, respondent No.1 did not appear before Tribunal and therefore, he was placed ex- parte. However, respondent No.2-Insurance Company has appeared through its counsel and filed written statement.
4. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company denied that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle owned by respondent No.1. It also denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner and that the compensation claimed as highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law. It was contended that the driver of the said vehicle bearing No.KA-21-N-2148 was not having valid driving license at the time of accident and there was violation of the conditions of the policy and as such, the liability deserves to be absolved. It is contended that the bus bearing No.KA-19-D-4505 was guilty of violations of law and - 6 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 therefore, the owner and insurer are also necessary parties to the petition. It was contended that the liability to pay compensation to the petitioner is not covered under the policy and the respondent No.1 has not paid any premium towards the coverage of the inmates of the vehicle. It was contended that the policy does not cover the wider liability and there was no contractual relationship between the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2-Insurance Company, with regard to the indemnifying injuries suffered by inmates of the vehicle. Therefore, respondent No.2-Insurance Company sought for dismissal of the petition as against it.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues and after considering the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P9 and Ex.R1, held that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle, in which, the petitioner was traveling and also held that the policy issued by respondent No.2-Insurance - 7 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 Company covers the risk of the inmates of the vehicle and therefore, fastened the liability on the respondent No.2- Insurance Company. The Tribunal awarded compensation under different heads as below: Sl. Amount Particulars No.(in Rs.) 1. Pain and sufferings 50,000/- 2. Attendant, food and extra 8,100/- nourishment 3. Medical expenses, loss of 6,41,995/- amenities of life 4. Loss of income 12,000/- Total 7,12,095/- 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Insurance Company has approached this Court in MFA No.188/2017 and the petitioner has approached this Court in MFA No.637/2018.
7. On issuance of notice, the Insurance Company and the petitioner have appeared before this Court, but the owner of the vehicle did not appear in both the appeals.-. 8 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 8. The learned counsel appearing for appellant- Insurance Company in MFA No.188/2017 submits that under the 'package policy', the employee is not covered. It is submitted that Section 147 of M.V.Act, as it stood prior to 01.04.2022, did not cover the risk of the employees, particularly, the inmates of the vehicle. It is contended that the inmates of the vehicle cannot be termed as 'third parties', and therefore, unless an additional premium was paid by the insured, the risk of the inmates of the vehicle is not covered. It is contended that the policy was a 'package policy', but however, the additional premium was not paid to cover the risk of the inmates of the vehicle. Therefore, he contends that the Tribunal erred in holding that the liability has to be fastened upon the Insurance Company.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal has not assessed the compensation under the different heads in a proper manner. He contended that the compensation awarded is - 9 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 meager and a paltry sum has been assessed by the Tribunal. He contends that the compensation under the head of 'future loss of income' was not properly assessed as the functional disability of the petitioner was not considered with reference to his avocation. He submits that the disability should have been held at 50% and an adequate compensation should have been awarded. He further contends that the policy issued by respondent No.2-Insurance Company being a 'comprehensive package policy', it covers the risk of the inmates of the vehicle. It is submitted that the decision in the case of JAGTAR SINGH ALIAS JAGDEV SINGH VS. SANJEEV KUMAR AND OTHERS1 as well as the decision in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. BALAKRISHNAN AND ANOTHER2, categorically lay down that the inmate of the car or pillion rider of the two wheeler is covered when a package policy has been issued by the Insurance Company. He also relied on the decision 1 (2018)15 SCC1892 AIR2013SC473- 10 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 of a Collateral Bench of this Court in the case of DADA KHALANDER VS. MUNEER KHAN AND OTHERS3 rendered by Dharwad Bench of this Court.
10. In light of the submissions made above, the points that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the policy issued by the appellant- Insurance Company covers the risk of the inmates of the vehicle?. (ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper?. Regarding Point No.1:
11. Petitioner contends that he was proceeding to the site of work at the instruction of his employer and he was working as an electrician. It is contended that another employee by name Dhanush was also travelling with him. It is contended that he was working under one Prashanth and he was the owner of the vehicle i.e., the respondent No.1. It is contended that the vehicle was covered under 3 MFA No.23416/2013, DD:
6. 10-2017 - 11 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 the policy issued by respondent No.2 and it was a 'package policy'. Therefore, it is contended that inmates of the vehicle are also covered as per the decision in the case of BALAKRISHNAN (referred supra).
12. Per contra, the Insurance Company has raised a contention that the additional premium in respect of inmates of the vehicle was not paid and therefore, the risk of the inmates of the vehicle is not covered under the policy.
13. A perusal of the policy produced by the Insurance Company at Ex.R1 shows that the policy was issued in the name of Prashanth i.e., respondent No.1. It is a 'private car package policy' as per the title mentioned on it. The third party basic premium of Rs.740/- was paid, but there was no premium paid in respect of unnamed passenger. However, the owner was covered as a sum of Rs.100/- was paid as an additional premium. A total sum of Rs.6,364/- was paid as a total premium amount. Therefore, there cannot be a doubt that it was a - 12 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 'package policy' issued by the respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
14. The question is, whether the policy at Ex.R1 covered the risk of the petitioner, who was traveling in the said vehicle as an employee of the owner of the vehicle i.e., Prashanth-respondent No.1?.
15. It is relevant to note that the decision in the case of BALAKRISHNAN (referred supra) at paragraph No.18 reads as below:
"18. The High Court has also reproduced a circular issued by IRDA dated 3.12.2009. It is instructive to quote the same:- "IRDA IRDA/NL/CIR/FandU/078/12/2009 03.12.2009. To All CEOs of all general insurance companies (except ECGC, AIC, Staff Health, Apollo) Re: Liability of insurance companies in respect of occupant of a private car and pillion rider in a two wheeler under Standard Motor Package Policy (also called Comprehensive Policy). Pursuant to the Order of the Delhi High Court dated 23 11.2009 in MAC APP No.176/2009 in the case of Yashpal Luthra v. United India and Ors. the Authority convened a - 13 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 meeting on November 26, 2009 of the CEOs of all the general insurance companies doing motor insurance business in the presence of the counsel appearing on behalf of the Authority and the learned amicus curie. Based on the unanimous decision taken in the meeting by the representatives of the general insurance companies to comply with the IRDA circular dated 16th November, 2009 restating the position relating to the liability of all the general insurance companies doing motor insurance business in respect of the occupants in a private car and pillion rider on a two wheeler under the comprehensive/package policies which was communicated to the court on the same day i.e. November 26, 2009 and the court was pleased to pass the order (dt. 26.11.2009) received from the Court Master, Delhi High Court, is enclosed for your ready reference and adherence. In terms of the said order and the admitted liability of all the general insurance companies doing motor insurance business in respect of the occupants in a private car and pillion rider on a two-wheeler under the comprehensive/package policies, you are advised to confirm to the Authority, strict compliance of the circular dated 16th November, 2009 and orders dt 26.11.2009 of the High Court. Such compliance on your part would also involve: (i) Withdrawing the plea against such a contest wherever taken in the cases pending before the MACT, and issue appropriate instructions to their respective lawyers and the operating officers within 7 days; (ii) with respect to all appeals pending before the High Courts on this point, issuing instructions. within 7 days to the respective operating officers and the counsel to withdraw the contest on this ground which would require identification of the number of appeals pending before the High Courts (whether filed by the claimants or the insurers) on this issue within a period of 2 weeks and the contest on this ground being withdrawn within a period of four weeks thereafter; (iii) With respect to the appeals pending before. the Hon'ble Apex Court, informing, within a period of 7 days, their respective advocates on record about the IRDA Circulars, for appropriate advice and action. Your attention is also drawn to the discussions in the CEOs meeting on 26.11.2009, when it was reiterated that insurers must take immediate steps to - 14 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 collect statistics about accident claims on the above subject through a central point of reference decided by them as the same has to be communicated in due course to the Honourable High Court. You are therefore advised to take up the exercise of collecting and collating the information within a period of two months to ensure necessary and effective compliance of the order of the Court. The information may be centralized with the Secretariat of the General Insurance Council and also furnished to us. IRDA requires a written confirmation from you on the action taken by you in this regard. This has the approval of the Competent Authority. Sd/- (Prabodh Chander) Executive Director.
16. In the said decision, the Apex Court had considered the distinction between the 'Act Policy' and ‘comprehensive Policy/package policy'. The Apex Court also observed that in an earlier decision in the case of BHAGYALAKSHMI AND OTHERS VS. UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER4, the matter was referred to the Larger Bench. Later, in view of the circulars issued by Tariff Advisory Committee and IRDA, it was felt that such reference to the Larger Bench is 4 (2009) 7 SCC148- 15 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 not necessary. The Apex Court has reproduced the Circulars issued by the IRDA in this regard.
17. The directions of the IRDA are to be considered in the light of the contentions taken up by the appellant- Insurance Company in the written statement. Obviously, the written statement was filed on 19.04.2013, which is much later to the said Circular issued by the IRDA. Therefore, it is evident that the contentions taken up by the appellant-Insurance Company was very much clarified by the IRDA much earlier point of time. But the written statement does not refer to the said circular. Hence, there cannot be a doubt that the package policy covers the risk of the inmates of the vehicle.
18. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision in the case of JAGTAR SINGH ALIAS JAGDEV SINGH (supra), which also lays reliance on the decision in the case of BALAKRISHNAN (supra). It is evident that the Apex Court has reiterated the decision in the case of - 16 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 BALAKRISHNAN (supra) and therefore, the ratio laid down in the decision in the case of BALAKRISHNAN (supra) is very much applicable to the case on hand also.
19. The decision in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SURENDRA NATH LOOMBA AND OTHERS5 also holds that there is no scintilla of doubt that a 'Comprehensive/package policy' would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. It was clarified that the Act Policy and Comprehensive Policy stands on a different footing and in view of the circular issued by the IRDA, the inmate of the car is covered by the insurance, if it is a 'package policy'.
20. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company contends that the decisions referred by the petitioner pertains to an occupant of the car or a pillion rider. It does not pertain to an employee. In the 5 (2012) 13 SCC792- 17 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 case on hand, the petitioner claims that he is the employee of the respondent No.1, who is the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, he tries to distinguish the case on hand from the factual matrix of the decisions referred supra. It is pertinent to note that one construction is, whatever the nomenclature may be, the premium paid determine the coverage. A comprehensive/package policy may still be short of covering the occupant for not collecting or paying the extra premium. In other words, premium paid would determine the nature of the coverage of the policy.
21. The second construction is, when the word 'package/comprehensive' is used, it gives the meaning that 'every thing including the occupant, driver, owners are covered under the policy'. The premium paid is irrelevant and recede to oblivion.
22. By virtue of the circulars issued by IRDA concerning the package policy, it appears that there is a deviation from the contention that the premium paid - 18 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 would determine the nature of the coverage of the policy. Therefore, when the decisions mentioned supra clearly mention that the 'package policy' covers the inmates of the vehicle, including the pillion rider, if it is a two wheeler, there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner is also covered by the 'package policy' issued by respondent No.2-Insurance company.
23. Yet another aspect which is of importance is, when the package policy covers the occupant of the vehicle, entering into the further classification of the occupant, i.e., whether he is an employee, relative of the employee or relative of the owner etc., would be irrelevant. The word 'comprehensive/package policy' would have no significance, if category of the occupant would determine the coverage of the policy or nullify such coverage of the policy. Of course, the insurance is a contract, but the purpose and object of the Motor Vehicles Act, to compensate a victim cannot be lost sight of.-. 19 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 24. From the stand point of insured, the ‘package/ comprehensive policy’ has the meaning to 'cover all the liability' or 'specified package'. But, the granular details of the package and the insured buying the coverage in the packages are neither available in public domain nor in the fine print of the policy. If the buyer of the policy has options to make the policy cover in various aspects, then it could have been said that the 'package policy' has these options (or packages) available. In the case on hand, it is evident that respondent No.2-Insurance Company had not offered the coverages/packages even though, it is a 'package policy'. The difference between the 'package policy' and the 'Act Policy' has not been clarified. It is pertinent to note a perusal of the Ex.R1-policy shows that it is a 'package policy' and if it is not a 'package policy', how it is different from an 'Act Policy' is not forthcoming. Therefore, it would be a futile exercise to enter into a discussion, as to whether the premium paid would determine the nature of the policy. On the other hand, it - 20 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 would suffice to hold that the 'package policy' covers the risk of inmates as per circular issued by IRDA and the policy having been issued in 2012, the said policy should cover the clarification or the circular issued by IRDA in this regard. It appears that in recent years the insurance Companies have started specifying the number of inmates of the vehicles covered under the package policy.
25. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the policy did not cover the risk of the inmate of the vehicle. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, on this count, is liable to be rejected. Regarding Point No.2:
26. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate, it is submitted that the Tribunal did not adopt the structural formula in respect of the disability sustained by the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned - 21 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 judgment shows that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,41,995/- and separate head in respect of the loss on account of disability was globally considered at Rs.2,00,000/-. The Tribunal, however, has held that there is a disability of 18% and the income of the petitioner was Rs.12,000/- per month. Obviously, the petitioner has not examined the employer i.e., respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 also had not filed any written statement admitting the claim of the petitioner.
27. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal clearly erred in holding that the income of the petitioner was Rs.12,000/- per month. The Certificate issued by the respondent No.1-Prashanth produced at Ex.P8 has not been proved as required under law. Therefore, the Tribunal should have adopted the notional income in coming to the conclusion in the matter.
28. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the purpose of settlement of disputes before Lok-Adalat prescribe a notional income of - 22 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 Rs.7,000/- per month for the year 2012. In umpteen number of decisions and also in the case of SMT.MARIYAMMA VS. SUYAMBULINGAM V. AND ANOTHER6, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the notional income has to be held to be Rs.7,000/- per month.
29. The petitioner contends that he was an Electrician and he had suffered the following injuries in the accident:
"(I) 1 x 1 cm laceration present on left parietal area. (II) small abrasion on the sternum (III) 4 x 2 cm laceration on the left knee point (IV) 3 x 3 cm laceration on the left leg posteriorly with bleeding (V) Extradural hematoma in the left fronto temporal area (VI) Fracture of squamous temporal bone on the left side. (VII) Fracture of lateral wall of left orbit (VIII) Fracture of mandible (IX) Fracture of left tibia (X) Fracture of left femur.
30. PW.2, who has assessed the disability of the petitioner has stated that there is deformity in the left 6 MFA No.7404/2014, DD:06.12.2022 - 23 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 knee, petitioner walks with short limb gait, there is 2 cms shortening in the left femur, 1 cms shortening in left tibia, and movements of the left leg and left knee are restricted. Therefore, he has assessed the disability of 18% in the left lower limb. When we consider the avocation of the petitioner that he was an Electrician, it can be said that functional disability is 10%. Hence, the 'loss of future income' is calculated as Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 18 x 10% =1,51,200/-. So far as 'pain and suffering' is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.50,000/- and no enhancement is required.
31. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,100/- for 'attendant charges'. Considering the period of inpatient treatment on two spells, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under this head. The petitioner has produced the medical bills and the actual medical bills are to the tune of Rs.4,31,995/-. Therefore, the same has to be awarded to the petitioner.-. 24 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 32. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- under the head of 'loss of income during laid up period'. Considering the nature of the injuries, it can safely be said that the petitioner was unable to resume his work at least for a period of 5 months. Therefore, Rs.35,000/- (Rs.7,000/- x 5 ) is awarded to him under this head.
33. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of 'loss of amenities in life'. The petitioner has to suffer the ‘short limb gait’ for rest of his life. Therefore, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under this head. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.7,28,195/- under the following heads: Sl. Amount Particulars No.(in Rs.) 1. Pain and sufferings 50,000/- 2. Attendant, food and extra 10,000/- nourishment 3. Medical expenses 4,31,995/- 4. Loss of future income 1,51,200/- 5. Loss of income 35,000/- 6. Loss of amenities in life 50,000/- Total 7,28,195/- Less: Awarded by the Tribunal 7,12,095/- Enhancement 16,100/- - 25 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 34. Thus, there will be an enhancement of Rs.16,100/- with interest.
35. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal carries an interest at 9% p.a. Learned counsel submits that the compensation awarded are primarily in respect of future entitlements of the petitioner. Therefore, he contends that grant of interest at 9% p.a., would be a bonanza and cannot come within the purview of just compensation.
36. The decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of MS. JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS VS. VENKATESHAN V. AND OTHERS7 was pressed into service by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. In view of the ratio laid down in the decision of the said case, it would be proper to reduce the rate of interest from 7 MFA No.5896/2018 & Conn.Matters DD248/2020 - 26 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 9% p.a. to 6% p.a. Hence, the rate of interest shall be 6% p.a. on the compensation amount.
37. In view of the above, both the appeals deserve to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER
(i) Both the appeals are allowed in part. (ii) The impugned Judgment and Award dated 22.06.2016 passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.1723/2012 is modified. The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.Rs.7,28,195/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization instead of instead of Rs.7,12,095/- awarded by the Tribunal. (iii) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. (iv) The amount in deposit before this Court in MFA No.188/2017 is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.-. 27 - NC:
2023. KHC:45559 MFA No.188 of 2017 C/W MFA No.637 of 2018 (v) Rest of the conditions imposed by the Tribunal in respect of the FD and etc., remain unaltered. Sd/- JUDGE tsn* List No.:
19. Sl No.: 1