IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.297 /2019 BETWEEN:
Kum. Shrushti K D/o Karthikeyan, Aged about 5 years Since minor Rep. Natural guardian Her father by name Karthikeyan T S/o Thirunavakarasu R Aged about 42 years R/o NO.67-68, 2nd Cross, 6th Main, HVR Layout, Basaveswaranaranagar, Bengaluru 560 079 (By Sri. Vijay Kumar T, Advocate ) AND:
1. The Manager, The Royal Sundaram Allinace Insurance Co., Ltd., 132, 2nd Floor, Mangalaya Punarbhav Brigade Road, Bengaluru 560 025 …Appellant 2. Govindaraj Ramanna, S/o Ramanna Major, No.242, Tilak Road, Near Brigade Vista Gowdanapalya Subramanyapura Bengaluru 560 061 (Vide order dated 6/2/2019 notice to Respondent No.2 is dispensed with) …Respondents This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V. Act against the judgment and award dated 6.8.2018 passed in MVC No.5529/2017 on the file of the XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-15), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This Miscellaneous First Appeal coming on for Hearing, this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT The appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 06.08.2018, passed in MVC No.5529/2017 on the file of the XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-15), wherein the claim petition came to be allowed in part and an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- was awarded to the petitioner together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant/petitioner has preferred this appeal.
2. The details of the accident are that on 15.06.2017 at about 12.30 p.m. one Smt. Bhuvaneshwari along with her daughter Shrusti was proceeding from Brindavan Arieon Hospital towards their residence. In the meanwhile, a car bearing registration No.KA-05-MU-9716 driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant, because of which she sustained severe injuries and was medically treated.
3. Respondents resisted the claim petition. The doctor, who has treated the petitioner was not examined before the Tribunal. However, the injury sustained by her is “fracture of right left tibia/fibula grade I comp.” The percentage of disability sustained by the petitioner is not forth coming , as the petitioner was of 1.5 years age at the time of the accident. Learned Member found that the disability does not arise. The compensation granted is Rs.1,60,000/- under different heads. There is no dispute with regard to the disability as could be seen from the record. Under such circumstances, I find the quantum of compensation granted is just and proper. No reason to continue the proceedings. The appeal is liable to be rejected.
Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE psg*