Kumari Archana vs Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 5919 Kant

                          1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

              MFA No.9873 OF 2018(MV)

BETWEEN:

KUMARI ARCHANA
D/O NARASIMAHAMURTHY
SINCE MINOR-REPRESENTED
BY HER FATHER AS NATURAL
GUARDIAN-FIRST FRIEND
BY NAME SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY
S/O C.B.RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/O LAKSHMISAGARA VILLAGE
SIRA TALUK-572137
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
                                         ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.)

AND

1.     RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
       ANIL DHIRU BAI AMBANI GROUP
       11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK
       JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011
       REPRESENTED BY ITS
       BRANCH MANAGER.
2.     SRI E THIMMAIAH
       S/O LATE GALI IRANNA
       AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
       R/O GUMMANAHALLI
                            2



     GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE
     YELIYUR POST
     SIRA TALUK-572137
     TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R1:
    NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W 0 V/O DTD 19/02/18)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:19/04/2018, PASSED
IN MVC NO.397/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC., AND ADDITIONAL MACT, SIRA, 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

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',

for short) has been filed by the claimant being

aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.04.2018 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sira in MVC

No.397/2016.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 18.02.2016 at about 12.30

P.M. when the claimant and her father were

proceeding towards Bukkapatna Circle Bus Stand, Sira

Town on the extreme left side of old NH-4 road and

when they reached in front of Hanuman Shed, at that

time, the rider of Hero Honda Splendor Pro Motorcycle

bearing registration No.KA-64-H-6907 came in a rash

and negligent manner from Bukkapatna Circle and

dashed to the claimant from back side. As a result of

the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained

grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section

166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded

that she spent huge amount towards medical

expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded

that the accident occurred purely on account of the

rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by

its rider.

4. On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1

and 2 being the owner and the insurer of the

offending vehicle have appeared through counsel and

only respondent No.2 has filed written statement in

which the averments made in the petition were

denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false

and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded

that the accident was due to negligence on the part of

the claimant. The driver of the offending vehicle did

not have valid driving licence as on the date of the

accident. The liability is subject to terms and

conditions of the policy. The age, avocation and

income of the claimant and the medical expenses are

denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of

compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant.

Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. Since the claimant is a minor,

the father of the claimant was examined as PW-1 and

Dr.Prasad Murugappa Gowda was examined as PW-2

and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.16. On behalf of the respondents, one witness

was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited a document

namely Ex.R.1-Copy of the policy. The Claims

Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held

that the accident took place on account of rash and

negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider, as

a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The

Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a

compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at

the rate of 9% p.a. excluding the interest for 'future

medical expenses' and directed the Insurance

Company to deposit the compensation amount along

with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been

filed.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant has

submitted that at the time of the accident, the

claimant was aged about 14 years and she was

studying VIII Std. The claimant has examined the the

doctor as PW-2, who has stated in his evidence, there

is a deformity in the claimant's right hand and also

surgery was conducted. Due to that, she is unable to

write and the same will affect to her studies. Even

after discharge from the hospital, she was not in a

position to discharge her regular work. She has

suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the

same, the overall compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he sought for

allowing the appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for

the Insurance Company has contended that the

claimant is a minor girl aged about 14 years. The

injuries sustained by the claimant are minor in nature.

PW-2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that the

claimant has suffered disability of 13% to whole body.

Considering the nature of injuries and evidence of

PW-2 and relying on the decision of Apex Court in the

case of Mallikarjun -v- Divisional Manager, National

Insurance Company Limited and Another (2014) 14

SCC 396, the Tribunal has awarded just and

reasonable compensation and it does not call for

interference. However, in view of judgment of the

Division Bench of this Court in the case of

MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS vs.

VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 and

connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the

claimants are entitled for 6% interest but the Tribunal

has granted 9% interest which is on the higher side.

Hence, he sought dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the judgment and award.

9. It is not in dispute that the accident has

occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the

offending vehicle by its rider. At the time of the

accident, the claimant was aged about 14 years and

she was studying in VIII Std.

As per wound certificate, the claimant has

sustained fracture of shaft right humerus and surgery

was conducted. PW-2, the doctor has stated in his

evidence that the claimant has suffered disability of

13% to the whole body. Therefore, taking into

consideration the deposition of the doctor, PW-2 and

age, avocation and the injuries suffered by the

claimant and the effect of injuries on her studies, the

claimant is entitled for the compensation of

Rs.50,000/- in addition to the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal.

10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in

part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation

of Rs.4,50,000/-.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest from the

date of filing of the claim petition till the date of

realization, within a period of six weeks from the date

of receipt of copy of this judgment excluding interest

for the compensation awarded under the head of

'future medical expenses'. The enhanced

compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

The Tribunal is directed to release the enhanced

compensation amount in favour of the claimant after

due verification.

This Court vide order dated 12.07.2019, has

denied the interest for a period of 116 days. Hence,

the claimant is not entitled for the interest for a period

of 116 days.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HA/-