Pradeepa vs H.S.Kantharaj
2021 Latest Caselaw 2064 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2021

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

                 M.F.A.NO.1270/2013 (MV)

BETWEEN:

PRADEEPA
S/O MYLARAPPA G
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS
STUDENT, MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL
GUARDIAN, FATHER
MYLARAPPA S/O GUDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/O SHIVAMOGGA TOWN
NOW R/O DUMMI VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK
                                           ... APPELLANT

            (BY SRI R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.     H.S.KANTHARAJ
       S/O SRINIVASA NAIK
       AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
       K.H.B. COLONY, SHIVAMOGGA
       OWNER OF BUS BEARING
       NO.KA-18-AA-9099

2.     SUJATHA BALAKRISHNA
       W/O K.K. BALAKRISHNA
       AGE: MAJOR
       ANNAPOORNESHWARI MOTORS
       HORANADU ROAD, KALASA
       CHIKKAMAGALORE DISTRICT
                                    2



3.     THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
       NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       CHIGATERI MERCANTILE BUILDING
       CHAMARAJ PET, DAVANAGERE
                                                     ... RESPONDENTS

             (BY SRI O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
      NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
                       DATED 10.07.2015)


     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.01.2012
PASSED IN MVC.NO.90/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, HOLALKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH
'VIDEO CONFERENCE' THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                            JUDGMENT

Though this appeal is listed for admission today, with

the consent of learned counsel appearing for

appellant/claimant and learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.3/Insurance Company, the same is taken up

for final disposal.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/claimant and learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

3. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant

challenging the Judgment and Award dated 23.01.2012

passed in M.V.C.No.90/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and

Additional MACT., at Holalkere ('the Tribunal' for short),

questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal.

4. The factual matrix of the case is that, a minor

boy met with an accident and suffered the permanent

disability. Hence, the claim was made for an amount of

Rs.15 Lakhs before the Tribunal.

5. The claimant in order to substantiate his case,

he himself examined as P.W.1 and also examined the

Doctor as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1

to P198. The respondents have not led any evidence,

however, got marked the copy of the policy as Ex.R1.

6. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and

documentary evidence available on record, allowed the

claim petition of the petitioner in part granting

compensation of Rs.2,87,000/- with 6% interest per annum

from the date of petition till realization. Being aggrieved by

the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal, the present

appeal is filed by the claimant before this Court.

7. The main contention of the learned counsel for

the appellant/claimant before this Court is that the Tribunal

has committed an error in awarding compensation of

Rs.60,000/- on the head of 'Pain and agony' and also

grossly erred in awarding an amount of Rs.60,000/-

towards 'medical expenses' and the injured was an

inpatient for a period of 45 days and spent more than Rs.1

Lakh towards medical expenses. The compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is meager. Hence, it requires an

interference of this Court.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.3/Insurance Company would vehemently

contend that the Tribunal has taken note of the material

available on record and while awarding the compensation

taken note of the evidence of the Doctor-P.W.2, the

Tribunal came to a conclusion that the disability suffered by

the claimant was 20%. Though it was contended that he

has suffered disability at 35% having taken note of the

material available on record, rightly awarded the

compensation of Rs.2,87,000/-. Hence, it does not require

any interference of this Court.

9. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel

appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing

for the third respondent-Insurance Company and on perusal

of the grounds urged in the appeal and the materials

available on record, the points that would arise for

consideration of this Court are:

(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the just and reasonable compensation as contended by the appellant and it requires an interference of this Court?

(ii) What order?

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):

10. Having heard the respective counsel and on

perusal of the material available on record, P.W.1 got

marked the documents particularly, Wound Certificate-

Exs.P5 & 6, Discharge Summary-Ex.P7, Discharge Note-

Ex.P8, Medical Bills-Exs.P12 to 104, prescriptions-Exs.P106

to 181, Exs.P182 to 193-Photos, Ex.P194-C.D. and Exs.195

& 196 X-rays. The records disclose that he was an inpatient

for a period of 45 days and the medical bills also to the

tune of Rs.50,800/- and the Tribunal rounded off the same

to Rs.60,000/-. Hence, I do not find any error in

considering the medical bills.

11. The Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun v.

Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company

Limited and Another reported in (2014) 14 SCC 396,

held that, if disability is above 10% and up to 30% to whole

body, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.3

Lakhs. It is also an undisputed fact that the medical bills of

Rs.60,000/- was awarded and towards 'loss of income of

the parents' has to be considered. In view of the judgment

of the Apex Court in Mallikarjun's case (supra), allowed

Rs.25,000/- towards 'loss of income of the parents'. Hence,

in all the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,85,000/-.

12. With regard to the interest portion is concerned,

this Court vide order dated 10.07.2015, while condoning

the delay of 270 days in filing the appeal passed an order

that the appellant would not be entitled to any interest for

the delayed period of 270 days, in case of enhancement of

compensation. Hence, the appellant is not entitled for any

interest for the delayed period of 270 days in filing the

appeal.

13. In view of the discussions made above, I pass

the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The Judgment and Award dated 23.01.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.90/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT., at

Holalkere, is modified granting compensation of Rs.3,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization excluding the interest for a period of 270 days delay in filing the appeal as against Rs.2,87,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

(iv) The respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within six weeks from today.

Sd/-

JUDGE

cp*