IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.5005/2019 (MV) BETWEEN:
The Manager Cum Custodian of Internal Insurance Fund Kengal Hanumanthaiah Road Sarige Bhavan, Bengaluru K.S.R.T.C Bus No.KA-13/F-1497 Vehicle owner, Bengaluru-560027 Represented by its Chief Law Officer. .. Appellant (By Sri F S Dabali, Advocate) AND:
Sharath s/o Manju Aged about 17 years 1 month (19 years), since minor represented by natural guardian/father Sri Manju s/o Siddegowda, Age Major r/o Harirayanahally village Kasaba Hobli, Krishnarajapet Taluk, Mandya District-571426. .. Respondent This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 14.3.2019 passed in MVC No.91/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, MACT, K R Pet, awarding compensation of Rs.1,02,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment.
This MFA coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 14.3.2019 passed in MVC No.91/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, MACT, K R Pet, wherein the claim petition came to be allowed in part granting an amount of Rs.1,02,000/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
2. The claimant was a minor aged nine years.
The road traffic accident stated to have occurred on 24.2.2009 at about 6.00 p.m. when he was traveling in a KSRTC bus bearing Regn.13/F-1497 on K R Pet – Shravanabelogala road, near Chikkahosahally gate. The vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner and the said bus capsized towards left side and the claimant sustained grievous injuries. According to the wound certificate – Ex.P2, the claimant suffered tenderness on the right forearm and wrist. PW2 is a doctor, who has assessed the disability suffered by the appellant. According to him, the disability to the left lower limb is 25%. The Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability at 8% with reference to the entire body. The learned Member has granted compensation in general way of Rs.1,02,000/-.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the assessment of compensation is on the higher side. The learned counsel further submits that the matter was kept pending for nearly nine years and the liability is determined, which amounts to penalizing the Insurance Company. In this connection, it is necessary to clarify that disposal of the appeal is very often depends on the co-operation of the appellant/KSRTC. It is open for the appellant to urge for early disposal before the Tribunal.
4. The disability @ 8% and granting compensation of Rs.1,02,000/- to the minor is not prejudiced nor excessive. The contention is only on the basis of quantum disputing that the claim is on the higher side. However, I do not find that the compensation granted is excessive considering the claimant is a minor having suffered disability to an extent of 25 % to the particular limb. Hence, there is no infirmity or irregularity in the judgment and award and that the compensation granted is just, fair and proper and it does not call for interference. Hence, the appeal is rejected.
The appellant is hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
The amount deposited, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE Bkm