IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.2694/2015 [MV] BETWEEN:
PREETHAM S/O SUNDARARAJ AGED ABOUT 09 YEARS MINOR R/P BY HIS FATHER- NATURAL GUARDIAN BY NAME S.SUNDARARAJ S/O LATE SHIVASUBRAMNYACHAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O MADHUVANAHALLY VILLAGE KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.
NOW R/AT 2ND CROSS RANGANATHANAGARA S R PATNA TOWN MANDYA DISTRICT 571413.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI.SREENIVASAN M Y, ADV.) AND:
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNIVERSAL SAMPO GENERAL INS.CO.LTD., NO.201-208, CRYSTAL PLAZA INFINIT MALL, LINK ROAD ANDHERI (WEST), MUMBAI-400058.
2. E. MAHADEVAIAH, RAJAPPA.E DEAD BY HIS LR AND WIFE BY NAME MAHADEVMMA W/O LATE E MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT ALANAHALLY BADAVANE MYSORE -570024.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADV. FOR R1 R2 - D/W) THIS M.F.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.12.2014 PASSED IN MVC.NO.612/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, 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 claimant is in appeal praying for enhancement of compensation, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 22.12.2014 in MVC No.612/2013 on the file of the Additional Senior civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srirangapatna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).
2. Claimant being a minor, aged 7 years, filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the accidental injuries suffered in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 12.10.2012, when the claimant was standing in front of his house along with his Grandmother, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-55/H-7734 ridden in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the claimant. Due to which, the claimant suffered fracture of both bones of his left leg. Immediately he was shifted to Appollo BGS hospital at Mysore, wherein he took treatment as inpatient from 12.10.2012 to 16.10.2012.
3. On issuance of notice, the respondents appeared before the Tribunal and filed their objections. Respondent No.1/owner of the motorcycle denied the entire claim petition averments and stated that the vehicle is insured with the second respondent and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. The second respondent/insurer denied the entire claim petition averments, but admitted issuance of policy. The insurer also denied the allegation of rash and negligent riding of the offending motorcycle by its rider.
4. On behalf of the claimant, his father was examined as P.W.1 apart from that P.W.2 and C.W.1/ doctor were also examined. Documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 were marked and Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 were also marked on behalf of the Doctor. Respondents marked Ex.R1 in support of their case.
5. Based on the material on record, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.3,98,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation is before this Court in this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent/insurer.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and submits that the claimant was aged about 7 years as on the date of accident and he has suffered fracture of both bones of left leg as such, the Tribunal ought to have awarded adequate compensation. The claimant was inpatient for 4 days. The compensation awarded on the head of Food, attendant charges and pain and suffering is on the lower side. Thus, prays fro enhancement of compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Tribunal awarded just compensation which needs no interference. He further submits that the doctor-C.W.1 has stated that the claimant suffers from 37% disability to a particular limb. Based on that the Tribunal has assessed the whole body disability at 13% which is proper and correct. He further submits that the Tribunal taking into consideration 13% disability as per the decision of this Court reported in ILR 2013 KAR 4891(SC) in the case of MASTER MALLIKARJUN v/s DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., has rightly awarded Rs.3,00,000/- towards permanent disability, which needs no interference.
9. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only point which falls for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the claimant would be entitled to enhanced compensation?
10. Answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons:
The accident occurred on 12.01.2012 involving the Honda Activa bearing registration No.KA-55/H-7734 and the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant is not in dispute. The claimant’s appeal is for enhancement of compensation. C.W.1-doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant suffers from 37% disability to a particular limb. The Tribunal, taking note of the evidence of doctor and nature of injuries suffered assessed the whole body disability at 13%. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun has observed that wherever the minor claimant would suffer disability OF about 10% upto 30%, the claimant would be entitled for Rs.3,00,000/- towards permanent disability. In the instant case, the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.3,00,000/- towards permanent disability and the compensation awarded on the other heads are also just and reasonable and do not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms