Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Minor G Pujitha, D/O Narsimhulu on 4 February, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.22842/2010(MV)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C.
BELLARY DISTRICT, BELLARY.
NOW BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
N.E.K.R.T.C.
CENTRAL OFFICES, SARIGE SADANA
GULBARGA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. F. S. DABALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MINOR G. PUJITHA
D/O. NARSIMHULU
11 YEARS, STUDENT
REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN
AND NATURAL FATHER
D. NARSIMHULU, S/O. RAMA RAO
AGE: 38 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST
RESIDENT OF SOMASAMUDRA CROSS
BELLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI J. BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.12.2009 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1164/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND
M.A.C.T.-I, BALLARI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF `1,60,000/-
WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
2
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal is filed by the owner and
insurer of the offending bus bearing registration
No.KA-34/F-518, challenging the judgment and award
dated 24.12.2009, passed in MVC No.1164/2007 by
the MACT-I, at Ballari (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal', for brevity), insofar as it relates to the
quantum of compensation.
2. The parties to this appeal are referred to by
their rankings assigned to them before the Tribunal
for the sake of convenience.
3. The facts of the case as revealed from the
records are;
On 26.02.2007, when the minor claimant, who
was aged about 8 years was crossing the road near
Somasamudra Cross, the offending bus bearing
registration No.KA-34/F-418, owned by the
respondent, which was driven in a rash and negligent
manner by its driver, came from Siruguppa side and
dashed against the minor claimant and caused the
accident. In the said accident, claimant suffered
injuries on her body and immediately she was shifted
to VIMS Hospital, Ballari. Having regard to the
nature of the injuries suffered by her, she was
thereafter shifted to Danamma Hospital, Ballari and
she had undergone plastic surgery for the injuries
sustained by her in both her legs. The claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed
on behalf of the minor claimant, claiming
compensation of `4,50,000/- with interest from the
respondent for the injuries sustained by her in the
Road Traffic Accident. The said claim petition was
partly allowed by the Tribunal and a compensation of
`1,60,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. was awarded.
The present appeal is filed by the respondent
challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the compensation awarded towards medical
expenses is on the higher side. He submits that
there is no evidence regarding future medical
expenses and therefore, the Tribunal was not
justified in awarding the future medical expenses.
He accordingly prays to allow his appeal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
the claimant submits that the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is just and proper and needs no
interference. He submits that, since the
compensation awarded under various heads by the
Tribunal is on the lower side, the matter needs no
interference. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the
appeal.
6. The only question that arises for
consideration in this appeal is with regard to the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It
is not in dispute that the claimant who was aged
about 8 years had met with an accident in which the
offending bus belonging to the appellant was involved
and the minor claimant had suffered injuries on both
her legs which required her to undergo plastic
surgery. The photographs of the minor girl are
produced before the Tribunal which are marked as
Ex.P10. A perusal of the same would go to show that
the minor girl had suffered disfigurement on both her
legs. The material on record would go to show that
skin grafting was done for the purpose of treating the
injuries suffered by the minor claimant. In support of
the claimant's case, PW2 and PW3 who are the
doctors who have treated her have been examined.
The said witnesses have spoken with regard to the
nature of injuries and the treatment undergone by
the minor claimant and they have also said that
plastic surgery was done on the legs of the claimant.
They have also spoken to the medical bills which are
produced by the claimant. The claimant has produced
the original of all medical bills from the hospital
wherein she was treated. Except the same, the
Tribunal has not taken into consideration other
medical bills which were also produced by the
claimant. Therefore there is no merit in the
contention urged by the appellant that the
compensation awarded to the claimant towards
medical expenses is on the higher side. Further
though the learned counsel for the appellant has also
urged that there is no evidence on record to show
that any future medical treatment is required to the
claimant and therefore the Tribunal was not justified
in awarding a sum of `10,000/- towards future
medical evidence, on an overall appreciation of the
material evidence available on record, it is seen that
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
various heads including loss of marital prospects and
disfiguration is on the lower side. Therefore, I find no
good reason to interfere with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal. On re-
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, I am of the view that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
proper and needs no interference. Accordingly, I find
no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
The amount in deposit is directed to be
transferred to the Tribunal for the purpose of
disbursement.
Sd/-
JUDGE
gab/CLK
