IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.1231/2019(MV) BETWEEN:
NAVYA D/O VANJAKSHI AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS R/AT NO.167/8, PURADODLU MEGARAVALLI THIRTHAHALLI (T) SHIMOGA (DIST.) THE APPELLANT BEING MINOR R/BY HER MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN VANAJAKSHI G.K. ..APPELLANT (BY SRI SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. NO.144, 2ND FLOOR SUBHARAM COMPLEX M G ROAD BANGALORE BY ITS MANAGER 2 . MR MAHESH T B S/O RAMAPPA C/O NAGARAJ R R/AT NO.GUDDEMANE VI KANLE POST SAGAR TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 401 ..RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.3777/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ACMM & XXIII ASCJ, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-25) PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though appeal is listed for admission, in the circumstances of the case it is taken up for final disposal.
Appeal is directed against the Judgment and award dated 05.11.2018 passed in MVC No.3777/2017 by the XXI ACMM and XXIII ASCJ, MACT, Court of Small Causes, (SCCH-25) Bengaluru, wherein claim petition came to be allowed in part and compensation of Rs.1,19,926/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of depositing the amount came to be granted to the petitioner. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, petitioner has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement.
2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.
3. The facts leading to road traffic accident and filing of claim petition are that on 12.12.2016 at about 6 P.M. the petitioner was standing on the left side of the road in front of Earappa’s House, Honakeri Village, Sagar Taluk, Shivamogga District, a car bearing registration No.GA-01-E-1785 came from back side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner because of which she fell down and sustained injuries.
4. Petitioner is said to have sustained following injuries:
(1) CLW left parietal (2) Swelling fracture tenderness of right thigh 5. It is submitted that the injured at that time was a child of six years and the injuries sustained by her are grievous. The disability as stated by the doctor- PW-2 is at 5% permanent residual physical disability.
6. The break up of compensation granted by learned Member is as under:
SL.NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1. Pain and suffering already undergone and to be suffered in future including loss of comforts, amenities on account of disability Rs.1,00,000/-
2. Discomforts, inconvenience Rs. 8,000/-
and loss of earnings of the parents during the laid up period 3. Medical Bills Rs. 1,926/-
4. Conveyance, nutrition and other incidental expenses Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs.1,19,926/-
7. Learned counsel for appellant Sri Shripad V. Shastri would submit no compensation is given on the head `disability’ and claimant was entitled for reasonable amount on the basis of disability and relied upon the decision in the case of Master Mallikarjun Vs Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Company Limited and anr reported in AIR 2014 SC 736.
8. It is necessary to mention that death of a minor child is not equated to a non earning member. A child’s injury is visualized on a totally different aspect, such as skilled talent, future and amount of hope and confidence the minor child possesses.
In the circumstances though there is 5% disability the amount granted towards pain and sufferings is Rs.1,00,000/-. In this connection considering the heads of compensation I find the Tribunal has come to the right conclusion. However internal splitting regarding heads are shown as stated above. The allocation of compensation on different heads though not in order, the quantum of compensation is just and fair.
In the light of quantum being just and proper and also the interest being granted at 8% p.a., there is no necessity for further proceedings. I find the appeal is devoid of merits. Hence, appeal is rejected at this stage itself.
Sd/- JUDGE SBN