IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.8431/2013 (MV) BETWEEN MR. H.S.GOVINDA RAJU, SON OF H.V.SRINIVAS MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENETED BY H.V.SRINIVASA MURTHY, SON OF VENKATACHALAIAH MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT 8TH CROSS, VEGNESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. C.ANANTHARAMA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI. PARAMESHWARAIAH, SON OF SHIVAGANGAIAH, MAJOR, R/AT NO.102, SULIVARA, CHIKKANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 136.
(OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO.KA-02/HA-2428) 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., REGIONAL OFFICE NO.25, SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 03.12.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.4067/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant is in appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 03/12/2012 in M.V.C.No.4067/2011 on the file of the VIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Bangalore.
2. The claimant filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the accidental injuries suffered by his minor son on 22-4-2011 in a road traffic accident. It is stated that when his minor son-petitioner was proceeding on the left side of the road on 22-4-2011 at about 12.30 A.M., near Huliyuramma Temple, Machohalli gate, Magadi-Bangalore road, during that time rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA.02.HA.2428 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the minor, as a result he fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
3. On service of notice, respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and filed its statement of objections denying the claim averments of the petition. It is stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. But issuance of policy was admitted in respect of offending motorcycle by respondent No.2.
4. On behalf of the minor claimant, his father examined himself as PW-1 and one more witness was examined as PW-2, got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company not lead any evidence.
5. The Tribunal on assessment of the entire material on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.83,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., on the following heads:
Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards Pain and agony 30,000 2. Towards Medical Expenses 30,000 3. Towards loss of income during treatment period 4. Towards loss of amenities and unhappiness 8,000 15,000 Total 83,000 The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is before this Court in this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Perused the records.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the claimant is a minor who has suffered a head injury and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He further submits that even though the father of the minor claimant has produced Ex.P-9 – patient’s detail bill (medical bills) issued by Unity Lifeline Hospital (India) Pvt. Ltd., amounting to Rs.1,01,865/-, the Tribunal has rejected the same on the ground that original receipts are not produced. He further invites the attention of this Court towards Ex.P-9 referring to lower court records and prays for enhancement of compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2- Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court with the judgment and award. Further, he submits that the claimant has not produced original bills/receipts for minor-injured being inpatient and taken treatment for the accidental injuries suffered by him. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim towards medical expenses. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. On hearing learned counsels and on perusal of the original records, the only question which arises for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case is whether claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation. The accident occurred on 22-4-2011 and an accidental injuries suffered by the minor claimant is not in dispute in this appeal. Due to the accident, the minor claimant has sustained left tempero parietal extradural hemorrhage injury as per Ex.P-5 – wound certificate. The minor claimant was inpatient for 6 days at Unity Lifeline Hospital (India) Pvt. Ltd from 22-4-2011 to 27-4-2011. Further the minor claimant has also undergone the Surgical procedure to left temporo parietal craniotomy & evacuation under supervision of neuro surgeon on 23-4-2011. The Tribunal has rejected the claim towards medical expenses on the ground that the father of the minor claimant has not produced the original receipts for payment of final medical bill. The said reasoning is erroneous as Ex.P-9 shows that the Hospital has charged a sum of Rs.1,01,865/-, out of the said amount a concession of Rs.2,910/- has been given and the bill would also indicate that by deducting the concession amount, total payment of Rs.98,955 has been paid. Page-3 of the Ex.P-9 would indicate the receipt numbers for the payment made in advance. The minor claimant’s father has made advance payment of Rs.5,000/- on 22-4-2011 through receipt No.2766; Rs.30,000/- on 23-4-2011 through receipt No.2773 and Rs.25,000/- on 27-4-2011 through receipt No.2809. Finally, the father of the minor claimant has made balance payment of Rs.38,955/- on 27-4-2011 through receipt No.31668. Thus, the same would indicate that through receipt numbers the full payment has been made. Hence, I am of the view that minor claimant would be entitled for a sum of Rs.1,01,865/- towards medical expenses instead of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
10. Further, the claimant would be entitled for another Rs.10,000/- on the head of ‘loss of amenities and unhappiness’. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards ‘Conveyance, Attendant, Food and Nourishment charges’ for which claimant would be entitled for Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the claimant-appellant would be entitled for modified compensation as follows:
Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards Pain and agony 30,000
Thus, the appellant would be entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,79,865/- as against Rs.83,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ