Karnataka High Court
Yash S/O Shankar Dange vs Mohammed And Anr on 7 February, 2022
Bench: J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
MFA No.201484/2019 (MV)
BETWEEN:
YASH S/O SHANKAR DANGE
AGE: 08 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
M/G BY SHANKAR S/O RAJARAM DANDGE
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: CENTERING WORK,
R/O MAKANPUR,
TQ: AND DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SANGANAGOUDA V BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHAMMED S/O BAPU MUJAWAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MUNDHEWADI, TQ: PANDHARPUR,
DIST: SOLAPUR-413304
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
PENISULA CORPORATE PARK,
NICHOLAS PIRAMAL TOWER,
9TH FLOOR, GANAPATRAO KADAM MARG,
LOWER PATEL, MUMBAI-400013.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SUDARSHAN M, ADVOCATE FOR R2
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH )
2
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL
AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM
PETITION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
08.02.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT NO.XII AT VIJAYAPURA IN MVC
NO.1551/2014.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 12.01.2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement
of compensation granted by the Tribunal for the
injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties
are referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the claimant that on
22.04.2014, he was traveling with Shankar Dandge
and Santosh Suravase on motor cycle bearing
registration No.MH-13/W-7012. A tractor/trailers
bearing registration No.MH-13/AS-9640, MH-13/J-
0340 and MH-13/J-0792 came from opposite direction
driven in a rash or negligent manner by its driver and
dashed against the two wheeler. In the accident, while
claimant and Shankar Dandge sustained injuries,
Santosh Suravase died on the spot.
4. Claimant who was aged 03 years filed the
claim petition contending that due to accident, he
sustained fractural injuries and become permanently
disabled. However, after enquiry, observing that the
injury sustained by the petitioner are simple in nature,
the Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of
Rs.35,000/- as detailed below;
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1. Injury, pain and sufferings 5,000/-
2. Medical expenses 11,000/-
3. Pain and agony to the 5,000/-
parents
4. Food and nourishment 3,000/-
5. Conveyance Charges 3,000/-
6. Attendant charges 3,000/-
7. Loss of amenities 5,000/-
Total 35,000/-
5. The findings of the Tribunal that accident
occurred due to the rash or negligent driving by the
driver of the tractor trailer and at the time of accident,
it was covered by a valid policy issued by respondent
No.2 is not disputed by the respondent and as such it
has attained finality.
6. The claimant has challenged the impugned
judgment and award on the ground that the injuries
sustained by the claimant though described as simple
injuries, having regard to the fact that the said
injuries caused on the occipital region, on the left eye
and anterior aspect of the left knee, the compensation
granted is on the lower side. The compensation under
the head medical expenses in a sum of Rs.11,000/- is
also liable to be enhanced. So also the compensation
under the head pain and agony, food and
nourishment, conveyance charges and attendant
charges and also loss of amenities are required to be
enhanced.
7. Admittedly, the claimant was in patient for
a period of 6 days. At the time of accident, he was
aged 2 years 6 months. Based on the medical bills,
the Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of
Rs.11,000/- towards medical expenses. However,
looking to the tender age of the claimant at the time
of accident, and nature of the injuries sustained by
him, it would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice,
if the compensation is increased by a sum of
Rs.70,000/- in addition to what has been granted by
the Tribunal i.e. a global compensation of Rs.70,000/-
Of course, respondent No.2 being the insurer is liable
to pay the enhanced compensation with interest at
6% p.a.
8. In the result, I proceed to pass the
following;
ORDER
(a) The appeal is allowed in part.
(b) The appellant/claimant is entitled for
enhanced compensation in a sum of
rs.70,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the
date of petition till realization, in addition to
what has been granted by the Tribunal.
(c) Since the claimant is minor, the entire
compensation be kept in fixed deposit till he
attains the majority.
Sd/-
JUDGE
msr
