Karnataka High Court
Preetham vs The Manager on 12 July, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.3208 OF 2020(MV)
BETWEEN:
Preetham,
S/o Prabhakar,
Aged about 18 years,
R/o Near Guhekallamma Temple,
D.M.Halli, Hassan Taluk,
And District-573201. ... Appellant
(By Sri. Madhu M.T., Advocate for
Sri. Girish B Baladare, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Manager,
Reliance Insurance Company Ltd.,
1st Floor, Kruthika Arcade,
M.P.L., S.A.S No.329331,
N R Circle,
H.N Pura Road,
Hassan-573201.
2. Vinay K.I., Major,
S/o Krishna Iyangar,
R/o #459, IIavala,
Mysore City,
Mysore-570019. ... Respondents
(By Sri.N.A.Mallikarjuna Reddy., Advocate for
Sri. H.S.Lingaraju, Advocate for R1:
Notice to R2 is D/W v/o dated: 12.07.2022)
2
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:21.10.2019 passed
in MVC No.1527/2018 on the file of the Sessions Court &
Additional MACT at, Hassan, partly allowing the claim
petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
This MFA, coming on for orders, this day, this Court,
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act') has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved
by the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2019 passed
by the II Additional District & Sessions Court &
Additional M.A.C.T. at Hassan in MVC No.1527/2018.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 01.07.2018 at about 11.30
a.m. the claimant was proceeding in a motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-03/EX-6091 as a pillion
rider. When they reached in front of Rakshith Motors,
DM Halli Bypass road, towards Kandali, at that time, a
car bearing registration No.KA-03/MN-9391 being
driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner, dashed to the motorcycle. 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 he spent huge amount towards medical
expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded
that the accident occurred purely on account of the
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by
its driver.
4. On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1
and 2 appeared through counsel and filed separate
statements in which the averments made in the
petition were denied. The age, avocation of the
claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was
pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in
the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the
quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is
exorbitant. Hence, they 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. The father of the claimant was
examined as PW-1 and Dr.Venkataramkumar was
examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents
namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. On behalf of the
respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and
got exhibited one document as Ex.R1. The Claims
Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held
that the accident took place on account of rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver,
as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries.
The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled
to a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 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
raised the following contentions:
Firstly, at the time of the accident the claimant
was aged about 16 years and was studying in 10th
standard. Due to the accident, he suffered head
injury. He has examined the doctor who assessed the
overall disability at 39.4% but the Tribunal has
assessed the whole body disability as only 5%.
Secondly, due to the accident claimant was
inpatient for four days, he has suffered lot of pain
during treatment and he has to suffer the disability
throughout his life. The compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he sought for
enhancement of compensation.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel
appearing for the Insurance Company has raised the
following contentions:
Firstly, at the time of the accident the claimant
was aged about 16 years, he was a student, he has
examined the doctor as PW-2. The doctor in his cross-
examination has stated that he is not the treated
doctor and he has not conducted any surgery.
Considering the evidence of the doctor and
considering the injuries suffered by the claimant the
Tribunal has rightly assessed the whole body disability
as 5%.
Secondly, considering the injuries suffered by
the claimant and the evidence of the doctor, the
overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just
and reasonable. Hence, he sought for 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 claimant has
sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle by its driver.
Due to the accident the claimant has suffered
left parietal bone fracture, subdural hematoma
measuring 2 mm and bilateral parietal scalp swelling.
The doctor was examined as PW-2. He has deposed as
hereunder:
"UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ Jr Dgï PÉ D¸ÀàvÉæ, ºÁ¸À£ÀzÀ°è aQvÉì ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ
£ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ zÁR¯ÁVzÀÝgÀÄ. CfðzÁgÀ £ÀªÀÄä D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ
§AzÁUÀ CgÉ¥ÀæeÁлãÀ ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è EzÀÝ£ÀÄ. £ÀªÀÄä D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è JªÀiï
J¯ï ¹ zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁr ¥ÉÆð¸ÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ»w w½¹zÉݪÀÅ
ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CfðzÁgÀ£À ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀÄ CfðzÁgÀ£À£ÀÄß zÁR®Ä
ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ w½¹zÀÝgÀÄ. ±À¸ÀÛç aQvÉì ªÀiÁrgÀ°®è. ªÀÄÆ¼É ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV
eÉÆÃqÀuÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÉÆzÀ°£À ºÁUÉ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä vÉÆAzÀgÉ
E®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀ aQvÉì §UÉÎ zÁR¯É ºÁdgÀÄ
ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉ. CfðzÁgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀ aQvÉì ¥ÀqÉ¢®è JAzÀgÉ
¸Àj¬Ä®è. ¢B 26.08.2019 gÀAzÀÄ UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjÃPÉë ªÀiÁrzÉÝ£ÀÄ.
¹n ¸ÁÌ£ï ªÀiÁr¹zÉÝ£ÀÄ JPÀìgÉà E®èzÉ £ÀÆå£ÀvÉ §UÉÎ ºÉüÀ®Ä
DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ JPÀìgÉà CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÁUÀÆå
GvÉæöàÃPÉë¬ÄAzÀ CAUÀ £ÀÆå£ÀvÉ ºÉaÑUÉ vÉÆÃj¹zÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
Considering the evidence of the doctor and
considering the head injury suffered by the claimant, I
am of the opinion that the whole body disability has to
be assessed as 12%.
Since the claimant is a minor and student
studying in 10th standard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of MALLIKARJUN -V- DIVISIONAL
MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in (2014) 14
SCC 396 has held that in case the disability is more
than 10%, claimant is entitled for Rs.3.00 lakhs
compensation in addition to the expenditure towards
conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges. In
view of the above, claimant is entitled for
compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs towards pain and
suffering, loss of amenities in life on account of
permanent disabilities, for 'future medical expenses' at
Rs.25,000/-, for 'loss of income to the parents' at
Rs.25,000/- and Rs.25,000/- for 'medical expenses'
10. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the
following compensation:
(Rs.)
Compensation under
different Heads
Pain and sufferings 3,00,000
Medical expenses 25,000
Loss of earnings to 25,000
parents
Future medical expenses 25,000
Total 3,75,000
The claimant is entitled to a total compensation
of Rs.3,75,000/- as against Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest @ 6%
p.a. 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.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the
Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Cm/-
