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.4979/2015 [MV] BETWEEN:
MASTER JOSHUA JOHN CRYSTAL G. S/O GEORGE UDAYA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS R/O NO.25 OPPOSITE TO GANESH GAS GODWON WHITEFIELD IMMADIHALLI ROAD NAGONDANAHALLI KAITOTA BANGALORE-66.
PETITIONER BEING MINOR REP. BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI.GEORGE UDAY KUMAR S/O DHANARAJ AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O -DO-.
(BY SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR T, ADV.) AND:
1. UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BY ITS MANAGER NO.217/A, 3RD FLOOR KVV SAMRAT OPPOSITE TO SAILS FACTORY ... APPELLANT 3RD MAIN, OUTER RING ROAD KASTURI NAGAR BANGALORE-560 043.
2. MANJUNATH B S/O BOREGOWDA AGED MAJOR NO.177, 2ND STAGE MYSORE PIN:570 016.
(BY SRI.RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADV. FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 D/W V/O DT:05/08/2015) ... RESPONDENTS THIS M.F.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1448/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SCJ & MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The appellant/claimant is before this Court not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 08.04.2015 passed in MVC No.1448/2014 on the file of XIX Additional SCJ & MACT, Bangalore.
2. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the Road Traffic Accident that occurred on 02.03.2014, when the claimant was crossing the road along with minor petitioner on Nagondanahalli, Immadihalli Main Road, Whitefield, Bangalore, at that time a Maruthi Swift Car bearing Reg.No.KA-09-N-9195 came in a rash, negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. As a result the claimant suffered injuries and immediately he was shifted to Narayana Multi Speciality Hospital, White Field Road, where he took treatment from 02.03.2014 to 10.03.2014. It is stated that the claimant has spent Rs.1,50,000/- towards medicine and Rs.50,000/- towards incidental expenses.
3. On issuance of summons, the 1st respondent – Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and filed its objection denying the claim averments. It contended that the accident did not occur due to the negligence of the driver of the car, but due to the sole negligence of the claimant. Father of the minor claimant examined himself as PW.1 and examined the Doctor as PW.2 in support of their case and marked the documents Exs.P1 to P17. The Tribunal on assessing the material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.1,78,309/- on the following heads :-
a. Towards pain and agony -Rs. 25,000/-
b. Towards Medical expenses -Rs.1,01,909/-
c. Towards disability -Rs. 32,400/-
d. Towards attendant -Rs. 9,000/-
e. Towards Food and Nourishment –Rs. 10,000/-
Total -Rs.1,78,309/-
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 1st respondent – Insurance Company. Perused the appeal papers and the lower court records.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the claimant – the minor boy was aged 6 years as on the date of accident. He has suffered grievous injuries and was inpatient from 02.03.2014 to 10.03.2014. He further submits that looking to the nature of injuries suffered and treatment taken by the claimant the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on various heads is on the lower side. He submits that PW.2 – the Doctor has opined that due to the accidental injuries the minor claimant has suffered 18% disability to particular limb and 6% disability to the whole body.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent – Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation and needs no interference.
7. On hearing the learned counsels and on perusal of the lower court records the only question that arise for consideration is “Whether the claimant would be entitled for enhanced compensation?” Answer to the said question is in the affirmative and in favour of the claimant for the following reason :-
The accident that occurred on 02.03.2014 involving the Maruthi Swift Car bearing Reg.No.KA-09- N-9195 and the accidental injuries suffered by the minor claimant is not in dispute in this appeal. The minor claimant has suffered fracture of compound grade IIIA distal end tibia and fibula of right leg. The claimant was inpatient from 02.03.2014 to 10.03.2014 at Narayana Multispeciality Hospital. Ex.P.8 is the discharge summary. Ex.P.9 is the hospital report, which would indicate the surgery undergone by the minor claimant. The Doctor in his evidence has opined that the claimant has suffered 18% disability to particular limb and 6% disability to the whole body. The Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence of PW.2 – the Doctor and on assessing the material on record has taken 6% total disability and awarded compensation on the head of ‘Compensation for disability’. Thus looking into the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, who has undergone surgery and was inpatient for more than 7 days, the interest of justice would be met if a total global compensation of Rs.50,000/- is awarded in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Thus the claimant would be entitled for enhanced compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/-.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award is modified and the minor claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of a sum of Rs.50,000/- in addition to Rs.1,78,309/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms