1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4025 OF 2017 (MV)
BETWEEN:
MOHAN KUMAR,
S/O. RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
R/O. RAJAGHATTA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK AND
DISTRICT- 573 201.
THE APPELLANT IS BEING MINOR
REP. BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN
FATHER BY NAME
RAMESH
S/O. NINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
... APPELLANT
[BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE [PHYSICAL
HEARING]
AND:
1. THE MANAGER,
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, MANJUNATHA COMPLEX,
OLD BUS STAND ROAD,
HASSAN - 573 201.
2
2. VASU B.,
S/O. BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/O. BOMMANAIKNAHALLI VILLAGE,
HOSAKOPPALU POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK AND
DISTRICT - 573 201
... RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 29.11.2018 NOTICE TO R-2 IS
DISPENSED WITH.]
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
17.08.2016 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.284/2015 ON THE FILE
OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT
HASSAN, PARTLY 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
Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
3
2. This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Hassan, (henceforth referred as 'Tribunal') in MVC No.284/2015 dated 17.8.2016.
3. The impugned judgment and award discloses that the claimant was a student aged 15 years. On 7.12.2014 at about 2.00 p.m., when the claimant was returning from Kalabhavan, Hassan City, after attending annual celebration of the school, towards Hassan railway station, the rider of a motor bike bearing registration No.KA-13-Y- 2626 (henceforth referred as offending vehicle) dashed against the claimant. As a result, the claimant suffered grievous injuries on his leg, foot, head and other parts of the body. He was shifted to Janapriya Hospital, Hassan, wherein he underwent treatment for a period of one month. He claimed that his parents spent a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for his treatment. He claimed that as a result of injuries sustained, he was prevented from 4 participating in sports and other extra curricular activities. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.
4. The insurer of the offending vehicle contested the claim petition and contended that it was the claimant who was negligent and responsible for the accident and therefore, it was not liable to pay any compensation. The owner did not contest the proceedings. The claimant examined one Sri Ramesh as P.W.1 and a doctor as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as per Exs.P.1 to P. 29 and Exs.C.1 to C.5. The insurance company has neither examined any witness nor marked the documents on its behalf.
5. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs.2,34,258/- along with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. 5 The claimant has filed this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal ought to have considered his claim and ought to have awarded just compensation.
7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent- insurer supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and claimed that the Tribunal is not justified in awarding interest at 8% p.a.
8. The occurrence of the accident in question is not in dispute. It is noticed that as a result of the accident, the claimant had suffered fracture of tibia condyle right, haemarthesis right knee and tenderness right ankle and right leg. The claimant had spent Rs.1,04,358/- towards medical expenses. The records placed by P.W.2 indicated that the claimant was an inpatient between 7.12.2014 and 6 13.12.2014. The evidence of P.W.2 discloses that on 24.6.2016 when the claimant was examined, he noticed the loss of muscle strength, pain, deformities, contractures and loss of sensation, and he assessed the disability to the right lower limb at 30%. The Tribunal, therefore, awarded compensation under the following heads: Medical expenses, Attendant charges, Rs.1,14,358.00 Conveyance and miscellaneous expenses Pain and Sufferings already Rs.1,00,000.00 undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience and loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability Discomfort, Inconvenience and loss of Rs. 20,000.00 earnings to the parents during the period of hospitalization Total Rs. 2,34,354.00
9. It is noticed that P.W.2 deposed that the claimant had suffered disability of 30% to the right limb and as per the guidelines of Alymco, the disability to the whole body 7 is calculated at 10%. It is deposed by P.W.2 that the claimant had to undergo further treatment which requires further expense. The insurer did not dispute the injuries sustained by the claimant. Therefore, having regard to the age of the claimant and further treatment for the injuries sustained by him, the Tribunal ought to have awarded adequate compensation and also compensation towards future medical expenses.
10. In addition, it is also seen that the parents of the claimant have lost their earnings and have also suffered discomfort and inconvenience due to the accident in question. Therefore, as held by the Apex Court in case of MASTER MALLIKARJUN VS. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2014 SC 736, the parents of the claimant are also entitled to adequate compensation towards loss sustained to them. In that view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the 8 Tribunal is enhanced by another sum of Rs.65,000/- which could be rounded off to Rs.3,00,000/-.
11. Hence, the following order:
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The compensation of Rs.2,34,358/- awarded
by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
(iii) The insurer shall deposit the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization within one month.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs