IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.2718/2014 [MV] BETWEEN:
BI BI AYESHA D/O MOHAMMED SADIQ AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS R/O AGARBANNIHATTI POST CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE-577001.
(BY SRI.HANUMANTHAPPA A, ADV.) AND:
1. H K LINGARAJU S/O H S KUBERAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O AGARBHANNIHATTI POST CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213.
2. SHANKRAPPA S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA R/O AGARBHANNIHATTI POST CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213.
3. THE MANAGER UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COM. LTD., CAPITAL TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, B WING ...APPELLANT NO. 554-555, ANNA SALAI TEYNAMPET CHENNAI (TN)-600010.
(BY SRI.B C SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADV. FOR R3 R1 & R2 – NOTICE D/W V/O DT:16.08.2016) …RESPONDENTS THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1061/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-4, DAVANGERE, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The claimant is in appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 28.10.2013 passed in MVC No.1061/2011 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Member and MACT-4, Davangere.
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the accidental injuries suffered in a Road Traffic Accident. It is stated that on 02.12.2010 when the claimant - Minor after attending the school was returning home in an autorickshaw bearing No.KA-17- A-9512, the driver of the autorickshaw drove the same in a rash and negligent manner due to which the autorickshaw plunged into the road side ditch, resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant. Immediately the claimant was shifted to Nanjappa Hospital at Shimoga wherein she took treatment as inpatient for four days. The claimant was aged 16 years as on the date of accident.
3. On issuance of summons the respondents appeared before the Tribunal and filed their written statement denying the claim petition averments. Respondent No.1 stated that the driver of the autorickshaw possessed valid and effective driving licence and also stated that the vehicle is covered with insurance policy issued by respondent No.2 - insurer.
Respondent No.2 - Insurer contended that the autorickshaw was not at all involved in the accident and the claimant was not travelling in the autorickshaw. The complaint was filed belatedly to make gain. The father of the claimant was examined as PW.1, and the Doctor/record keeper was examined as PW.2, apart from marking the documents Exs.P1 to P62. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal based on the material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.77,850/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization on
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal the appellant/claimant is in appeal before this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent - insurer. Perused the entire material on record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the claimant was a minor aged 16 years as on the date of accident. She has suffered fracture of temporal bone and further she has suffered swelling over the right side frontal region, swelling over right ankle region, after operation she had contusion of right parietal scalp, fracture of left parietal bone and large EDH. She has placed on record the wound certificate at Ex.P.4 and Exs.P.60 to 62 - case sheets and x-ray which would indicate the injuries suffered and treatment taken by the claimant. Looking to the said documents it makes clear that the compensation awarded is on the lower side when compared to the injuries suffered and treatment taken by the claimant. Thus prays for enhancement of compensation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- insurer submits that the Tribunal awarded just compensation which needs no interference. Thus prays for dismissal of the appeal.
7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the point that falls for consideration is as to 'Whether the claimant would be entitled for enhancement of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case?' The said point is answered partly in the affirmative for the following reasons :-
The occurrence of the accident on 02.12.2010 involving the autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-17-A- 9512 and the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant are not in dispute in this appeal. The claimant admittedly was aged 16 years and was a student. The claimant has placed on record Ex.P.4 - the Wound Certificate and Exs.P60 to P62 - the case sheets and X- ray to establish the injuries sustained and treatment taken as inpatient for four days. The claimant suffered the injuries as stated above and she has also undergone operation. Looking to the injuries suffered, treatment taken as inpatient for four days, I am of the view, that the claimant would be entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- as global compensation in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the above extent. The claimant would be entitled to enhanced global compensation of a sum of Rs.25,000/- in addition to Rs.77,850/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
9. Sri Shivanne Gowda, learned counsel is permitted to file memo of appearance for respondent No.3 within two weeks.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms