IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.11854 OF 2011(MV) BETWEEN:
SRI.B.BALARAJU S/O BASAVANNA AGED 8 YEARS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER BASAVANNA S/O BALLAIAH, R/O HALE HAMPAPURA VILLAGE, MALLUR P.O. KOLLEGAL ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.R.PRAMOD, ADV.) AND:
1. M.R.DOARAISWAMY S/O RAJAPPAGOUNDER R/AT DOLLIPURA ATTAGULLIPURA CHAMARAJANAGAR – 571 313 2. KOKILAMMA W/O R DORAISWAMY MAJOR, R/AT DOLLIPURA ATTAGULIPURA P.O. CHAMARAJANAGAR-571313 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DR.RAJAKUMAR ROAD, KOLLEGAL – 571 440 4. CHINNASWAMY R AGED BOUT 31 YEARS S/O RACHAIAH R/O MULLUR VILLAGE, KOLLEGAL TALUK-571440 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DR.RAJAKUMAR ROAD, KOLLEGAL – 571 440 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.JANARDHAN REDDY, ADV. FOR R3 & R5: NOTICE TO R1, R2 & R4 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:10.02.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.111/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, M.A.C.T., KOLLEGAL, 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:
J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed by father of a minor boy, namely R.Balaraju challenging the judgment and award dated 10.2.2011 passed in MVC No.111/2010 by the Fast Track Court and MACT, Kollegal.
2. The brief facts of the case is that on 15.2.2010 at about 5.00 p.m. in the evening B Balaraju was travelling along with others in an Auto bearing Regn. No.KA-10/3358 from their school i.e. M.L.G.School at Uttahmballi and the said auto was driven by its driver slowly and cautiously on the left side of Mysore – Kollegal, at that time, a bus bearing Regn. No.KA- 10/7009 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against auto. Due to the accident, Balaraj has sustained injuries and he has been shifted to BGS Hospital, Mysore for treatment and he was an inpatient for a period of thirteen days. After recovering from injuries, he filed the claim petition. Father of the claimant Basavanna was examined as PW3 and produced documents. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries. As per the doctor’s evidence, there is disability upto 20%. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun –vs- Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited and Anr. reported in AIR 2014 SC 736, the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation. He further contended that the injured Balaraj was inpatient for a period of thirteen days. As per the doctor, there is disability of 20%. The compensation granted by the Tribunal is on the lower side and he has sought for enhancement of compensation.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance company submits that the treating doctor, who has been examined as CW1, Dr.Ramesh Ranganathan, states that there is 20% disability. The whole disability is less than 10%. The Tribunal has granted just and fair compensation and hence he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
6. It is not in dispute that Balaraj suffered injuries due to accident occurred on 15.2.2010 on account of the rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing Regn. No.KA-10/3358. He has sustained (1) grievous head injuries, haemorrhage with diffuse cerebral edema (2) grievous fracture injury to his left ribs (fracture of 1st rib) 3) grievous injury to his chest and 4) grievous injury to his pelvic region and other injuries. He was inpatient for thirteen days at BGS Hospital, Mysore. Dr.Ramesh Ranganathan in his deposition states that there is disability of 20%. The disability of whole body is taken as less than 10%. In view of the law laid down in the case of Mallikarjun referred to above, for the disability which is less than 10%, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to other heads is to be granted. Accordingly, Rs.1,00,000/- has been granted, in addition to Rs.1,60,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards attendant charges and other expenses. In all, the appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- in the place of Rs.2,60,000/- granted by the Tribunal.
The appeal is allowed in part.
The appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,10,000/- The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE nm