IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.2039/2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
MAHENDRA, S/O G.ANANDA, AGE: 10 YEARS, R/O NO.894, 2ND CROSS, NES EXTENSION, ANITHA CONVENT ROAD, MALAVALLI TOWN, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER G.ANANDA, S/O A.B.GANGADHARAIAH, MAJOR.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI M.CHIDANANDA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. V.MITHILI, D/O VARADARAJAN, NO.1886, HULLINABEEDI, K.R.MOHALLA, MYSORE – 570 001.
2. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.1134, PRINCE OF WALES ROAD, NEAR BALLAL CIRCLE, CHAMARAJPURAM, MYSORE – 570 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. HARINI SHIVANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 SERVED UNREPRESENTED) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.04.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.24/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MALAVALLI, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The claimant – appellant is before this Court not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 01.04.2011 in MVC No.24/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Malavalli. The claimant was aged about 7 years as on the date of the accident. A claim petition was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident.
2. It is stated that on 07.01.2009 when the claimant and his mother were walking on the left side of the road, near car parking of Mysore Court premises, a car bearing reg No.CAC.1902 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the claimant. In the process, the claimant has sustained the following injuries:-
“a) Degloving wound present over the left leg foot.
b) Fracture of left leg middle 2, left leg foot.
c) Anxelallary the skin of atmost whole of foot if avalued with wound expose, mudasored portion patient in the wound bleeding seldly movements of left foot restricted.”
3. Respondent No.2 on service of summons appeared and filed objections, denying the claim averments. The father of the claimant was examined as PW-1 and PW-2 was examined in support of the claimant and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to Ex.P19. Based on the material on record, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.67,600/-. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant – claimant is before this Court in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the second respondent – Insurance Company.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the claimant sustained grievous injuries and he was inpatient for 26 days and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He submits that the Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation under the heads ‘loss of amenities’ and ‘loss of income of parents during the laid up period’.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent – Insurance Company submits that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and proper, needs no interference.
7. The accident is of the year 2009. As on the date of the accident, the claimant was aged about 7 years. He has suffered fracture of left leg middle 2, left leg foot, apart from other injuries. The claimant was inpatient for 27 days in J.S.S.Hospital, Mysore. The accident and the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant is not in dispute in this appeal. Looking to the injuries suffered by the claimant and the treatment taken by the claimant, being inpatient for 27 days, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the various heads is on the lower side. Further, the claimant would be entitled for compensation under the head ‘loss amenities’ and ‘loss of income of parents during the laid up period’. The claimant would be entitled for modified compensation as follows:-
SL.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT (Rs.)
Thus, the appellant - claimant would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,27,000/- as against Rs.67,600/- awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part.
Sd/- JUDGE VMB