IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY M.F.A.No.5777 OF 2011 (MV) BETWEEN:
Master Venkatesh S/o. late Venkatashamaiah Aged about 10 years, Since minor rep. by mother And natural guardian Smt. Sujatha, W/o. late Venkatashamaiah Aged about 41 years R/at Jakkasandra Colony, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.
(By Sri. V. Sudhakar, Advocate) AND:
1. Sri. J. Lokesh, S/o. Jayalakshmi, Aged major, R/at No.90, Raghavendra Block Srinagara, Bangalore – 560 050.
2. The Divisional Manager The United India Insurance Co.Ltd., No.212, SFS 407, I ‘A’ Main, …Appellant New Town, Yelahanka, Bangalore – 560 064.
…Respondents (By Sri. A.N. Krishnaswamy, Advocate for R-2;
R1- notice dispensed with vide order dt.03-06-2016) *** This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and award dated 12-01-2011 passed in MVC No.6278/2008 on the file of the XIII Additional Small Cause Judge & Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, Partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA coming on for Hearing this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T The present appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned XIII Additional Small Cause Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Tribunal’, for short), in its judgment and award dated 12-01-2011 in M.V.C.No.6278/2008.
2. The summary of the case of the claimant in the Tribunal is that, on 22-06-2008 at about 2:20 p.m., while the claimant who was a boy aged about seven years as at the time of accident was waiting on National Highway–4, Bangalore-Tumkur Highway, near L.G.Krishnappa’s Petrol Bunk, Nelamangala Town, a Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-40/H-2152 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. Due to the said accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Harsha Hospital, Nelamangala, wherein he was treated as an in- patient and thereafter, he was shifted to NIMHANS and Victoria Hospital and was treated as in-patient for twenty days.
3. The claimant has claimed compensation of a sum of `3.50 lakhs from respondents 1 and 2 arraying them as owner and insurer of the alleged offending vehicle respectively.
4. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence led by both side and hearing both sides, awarded compensation of a sum of `73,500/- and interest there upon at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the deposit of compensation amount in the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
5. Challenging the said judgment and award passed by Tribunal, the claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant in his argument vehemently submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is very meagre and deserves enhancement.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurer in his argument submitted that the Tribunal was very much liberal in awarding the compensation, as such, what has been awarded by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.
8. I have perused the Lower Court records in detail and gone through the evidence led by the parties.
9. The claimant is said to a boy of seven years as at the date of accident and according to the learned counsel for the appellant, he was pursuing his studies as a student. The Wound Certificate at Ex.P2 would go to show that the claimant sustained three major injuries which include two fractures and one head injury. The contention of the claimant that he was in-patient in the Hospital for a period of twenty days, though is not supported by cogent records, but considering the nature of injuries sustained, it can be inferred that he must have been in-patient in Hospital for few days.
10. After going through the records and more particularly the Hospital records produced by the claimant and the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, when the Court was convinced that the matter deserves a marginal enhancement and suggested to both side, the learned counsel from both sides jointly submitted that they would be consenting if the enhancement is marginal.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company further submits that he would also be agreeable in case the compensation does not exceed a sum of `30,000/- to `35,000/-.
12. In the light of the above and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, the medical records and the documents produced by the claimant, I am of the view that the claimant deserves enhancement of a sum of `35,000/- irrespective of the bifurcation of the said amount under various heads. The said enhancement would be in addition to the compensation of `73,500/- already awarded by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R The Appeal is allowed in part.
The judgment and award dated 12-01-2011, passed by the learned XIII Additional Small Cause Judge and Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, in M.V.C.No.6278/2008, is hereby modified to the extent that the compensation awarded at `73,500/- is enhanced by a sum of `35,000/-, thus fixing the total compensation at `1,08,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Eight Thousand Five Hundred only).
The rest of the order of the Tribunal with respect to fixing the liability upon the respondents and directing the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company to deposit the awarded amount, awarding the interest, its rate, terms regarding release of the amount awarded shall remain unaltered.
Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE BMV*