IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.1473 OF 2017 (MV) BETWEEN KISSAN BHARDWAJ, S/O K.CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL FATHER BY NAME K.CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O KRISHNASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.1345, 1ST MAIN, KRISHNAMURTHYPURAM, MYSURU – 570 032.
(BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M.Y., ADVOCATE) AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC., SHANTHINAGAR, K.H.DOUBLE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 027.
(BY SRI.L.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT …RESPONDENT THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.770/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, PRINCIPAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MACT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the appellant- claimant aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 03.09.2016 passed by the Judge, Prl. Small Causes & MACT, Mysuru in MVC.No.770/2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short) whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation in a sum of Rs.2,41,121/- in favour of the appellant together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization on account of death due to accident that occurred on 02.05.2014.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. Both the counsels submit that the occurrence of accident as well as the coverage of the policy of the offending vehicle by the Insurance Company is not in dispute and this appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to para 31 of the impugned judgment and award which reads as under:
“Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and up to 30% to the whole body, Rs.3,00,000/-; up to 60%, Rs.4,00,000/- up to 90%, Rs.5,00,000/- and above 90%, it should be Rs.6,00,000/-. For permanent disability up to 10%, it should be Rs.1,00,000/-, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick.”
5. It is contended that the Tribunal having referred to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun V/s. NICL reported in 2014(14) SCC 398, wherein it is held that in respect of disability between 10% and 30% to the whole body, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- has to be awarded. But the Tribunal committed an error by awarding only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the appellant-claimant. It is therefore contended that in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, the compensation under the head ‘pain and suffering’ has to be enhanced by this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent-KSRTC would support the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
7. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head ‘pain and suffering’ without assigning proper or cogent reasons at para No.32 of the impugned judgment and award.
9. The Tribunal having referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun V/s. NICL stated supra, wherein it is held that if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the entire body, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- has to be awarded. The Tribunal has failed to consider and appreciate the material on record as well as the finding recorded in the earlier part of the judgment wherein, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the appellant-claimant would suffer disability to an extent of 13% to the entire body.
10. Consequently, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to additional sum of Rs.2,00,000/- under the head ‘pain and suffering’.
11. Accordingly the appellant-claimant would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following:-
ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the dated 03.09.2016 passed by the Judge, Prl. Small Causes & MACT, Mysuru in MVC.No.770/2014 is hereby set aside.
(iii) The appellant-claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
(iv) The additional enhanced compensation to be released in favour of the appellant-claimant.
Sd/- JUDGE SSD