Karnataka High Court
V.S. Harshith Kumar vs Richard D' Souza on 16 January, 2021
Author: N S Gowda
MFA 379/2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
M.F.A.NO.379/2014 (MV - I)
BETWEEN:
V.S.HARSHITH KUMAR,
S/O S.SIDDARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
R/AT HANAKERE VILLAGE,
MANDYA TLAUK AND DISTRICT-571 401.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJA.L., ADV.)
AND:
1. RICHARD D'SOUZA,
METAL MERCHANT,
BAZAR STREET, NANJANGUD.
MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 001.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
CO. LIMITED., M.C.ROAD,
MANDYA - 571 401.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. HARINI SHIVANAND, ADV. FOR R-2,
VIDE ORDER DATED 25.02.2015, NOTICE TO R-1 IS
DISPENSED WITH.)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:31.01.2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.633/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE
MFA 379/2014
2
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM, MANDYA, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
1. The fact that an accident occurred on 22.01.2008,
when the claimant, a minor boy aged 14 years was walking
on the left side of the footpath, a maruti car bearing
registration No.KA-02/M-5315 collided with him, is not in
dispute. The fact that he suffered grievous injury as a result
of the said accident is also not in dispute. The further fact
that the offending vehicle was insured is also not in dispute.
2. The Tribunal has, in fact, recorded a finding to that
effect in the impugned order. The Tribunal has also
recorded a finding that there was medical evidence on
record to the effect that the claimant had pain while
opening his mouth, difficulty in chewing and numbness in
the front side of the mouth, and according to the doctor, he
had suffered 30% disability to the facial skeleton.
MFA 379/2014
3. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence, has
come to the conclusion that the claimant was entitled to the
following sums:
1. Towards simple injuries
(1 to 4, 7 & 8) - Rs.18,000-00
2. Towards grievous injuries - Rs.20,000-00
3. Medical expenses - Rs.20,000-00
4. Pain and suffering - Rs.50,000-00
Total - Rs.1,08,000-00
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the
claimant being a 14 year old boy who admittedly has
suffered 30% disability to his facial skeleton resulting in
pain in opening the mouth, difficulty in chewing and also
suffering from numbness on the front side of the mouth,
would definitely be entitled to a much larger sum than the
one that is awarded by the Tribunal. He submitted that the
Tribunal has not even considered the award of
compensation towards loss of amenities and the sum of
Rs.50,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering was a
meager sum.
MFA 379/2014
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurance
Company, on the other hand, contended that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and proper
and did not call for any interference.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned
Counsel and perused the material on record.
7. The fact that the claimant was a 14 year old boy is
not in dispute. CW-1 - Dr. Saikrishna, Maxillo Facial and
Dental Surgeon who was examined, has stated that the
claimant had pain while opening the mouth, difficulty in
chewing and numbness on the front side of the mouth. He
has also stated that the claimant was suffering from
permanent disability to an extent of 30% of the facial
skeleton and if the pain/infection persisted, he would
require another operation, which would cost Rs.10,000/-.
8. The father of the claimant who was examined, has
stated in his evidence that as a result of the accident, his
son had virtually become inactive and he was also unable
to talk clearly.
MFA 379/2014
9. In my view, if a 14 year old boy suffers 30%
permanent disability to the facial skeleton which results in
difficulty to him to even open his mouth and to chew his
food, he would have suffered immeasurable pain and agony
apart from permanent and debilitating injury. I am,
therefore, of the view that the sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded
towards pain and suffering would have to be increased to
Rs.1,50,000/-.
10. Having regard to the fact that the claimant has
suffered 30% permanent disability to his facial skeleton and
having regard to the fact that he would have difficulty in
opening his mouth and chewing during his entire life, it
would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-
towards loss of amenities.
11. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.38,000/-
towards injuries suffered by the claimant. In my view,
having regard to the nature of injuries, it would be just and
necessary to enhance the said sum to Rs.1,00,000/-.
MFA 379/2014
12. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-
towards medical expenses. There is evidence of the doctor
indicating that the claimant may require one more surgery
which may cost a further sum of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore,
the said sum of Rs.20,000/- would have to be increased to
Rs.30,000/-. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.5,30,000/-.
17. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The
claimants are entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.5,30,000/- as against a sum of Rs.1,08,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount of
compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum from
the date of petition till its realization.
18. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
entire compensation amount within a period of eight
weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KK
