IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA MFA No.282/2012 (M.V.) BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., TEJUS COMPLEX, SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, MYSORE 570 001 DULY REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, 44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560025.
(BY SRI A. RAVISHANKAR, ADV.) AND:
... APPELLANT 1. MASTER DARSHAN S/O. LINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, MINOR, DULY REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER, LINGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. MALLAIAH, R/O. HOUSING BOARD COLONY, LIG NO.56, TANK ROAD, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313.
2. R. DANIYAL RAJARATHNAM AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O. M. RAJARATHNAM, LECTURER, MARIMALLAPPA COLLEGE, MYSORE-570 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SOMASHEKAR KASHIMATH, ADV. FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 4.3.2013) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 3.10.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.59/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE AND M.A.C.T., CHAMARAJANAGAR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,89,615 /- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T This appeal is by the insurer seeking reduction of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is heard and disposed of finally. Perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
4. As there is no dispute regarding certain injuries sustained by the claimant in a road traffic accident occurred on 04.07.2009 due to rash and negligent riding of Herohonda Motor Bike bearing registration No.KA-09-V-3514 by its rider and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point remains for consideration in the appeal is:
“Whether the compensation of Rs.1,89,615/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for reduction?”
5. As per Ex.P5-wound certificate, the claimant had sustained following injuries:
i) small abrasion over ankle joint.
ii) small abrasion below knee left side and swelling in left upper 1/3rd of the leg.
6. X-ray shows that there is fracture on both bone tibia and fibula 1/3rd. The injuries sustained and treatment underwent by the claimant are also evident from Exs.P8-discharge card, Ex.P9-prescripiton, Ex.P10- medical bills and supported by oral evidence of the claimant. The doctor was examined through Court Commissioner as CW.1 and X-ray, case sheet, prescriptions and medical bills were marked through doctor as Ex.C1 to C5 respectively.
7. The Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed as under:- Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, a sum of Rs.60,000/- is awarded towards ‘pain and suffering’ as against Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal..
8. The claimant has produced medical bills for Rs.14,215/- and he was treated as impatient for four days. Considering the same, Rs.14,215/- awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘medical expenses’ is just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement under this head.
9. As claimant was minor and he was looked after by his parents during the period of treatment and rest leaving their regular work and suffering financial loss. Therefore, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards ‘loss of income of the parents during laid up period’ of the claimant.
10. CW.1-Dr.Krishna Prasad has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 20% to particular portion and 10% to the whole body. The claimant was a minor at the time of accident. Therefore, awarding compensation towards ‘loss of future income’ does not arise. Nevertheless, the claimant has to undergo certain amount of discomfort and unhappiness in his future life. Therefore, justice would be met if a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- is awarded towards ‘residuary disability’ as against Rs.1,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.25,000/- awarded towards ‘loss of amenities’ by the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement under this head.
11. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the following compensation:-
12. As the compensation of Rs.1,89,615/- awarded by the Tribunal is found to be less than what is entitled by the claimant, there is no scope for reduction.
13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits.
The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal in favour of the claimant in terms of the award of the Tribunal.
SD/- JUDGE VM