Kumari Jeevitha vs Sri. T.C. Laxmisha
2022 Latest Caselaw 8666 Kant

                        1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                        BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

              MFA.NO.4949/2015(MV-I)

BETWEEN:

KUMARI JEEVITHA
AGED 6 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN FATHER
SRI. T.N. RAGHU
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O SRI. T.R. NAGARAJ
R/AT LINGADAHALLI ROAD
KODI CAMP
TARIKERE TOWN-577 228
                                         ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    SRI. T.C. LAXMISHA
      AGED 37 YEARS
      S/O T.H. CHANDRAPPA
      R/AT DR. AMMANNA STREET
      TARIKERE TOWN-577 228

2.    SRI. T.R. NAGARAJ
      AGED 67 YEARS
      S/O T.S. REVANNA
      R/AT LINGADAHALLI ROAD
      KODI CAMP
      TARIKERE TOWN-577 228

3.    THE REILANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
      M.G. PALACE, GOPI CIRCLE
                             2



    SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 201
    REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
                                            ... RESPONDENTS

(R1 AND R2 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
 DATED 05.01.2016, SRI. D. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE
 FOR R3(THROUGH V/C))

     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED:23.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.14/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, MAMACT, TARIKERE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as 'MV

Act' for brevity) by the appellant-claimant challenging the

judgment and award dated 23.03.2015, passed in MVC

No.14/2011, on the file of Senior Civil Judge and MAMACT

at Tarikere, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for

brevity) seeking enhancement.

Brief facts:

2. On 07.06.2010 the appellant and family

members returning to Tarikere from attending pooja at

Hogarekhangiri Temple in the Tata Sumo Grande vehicle

bearing No.KA:18/N-3425, near Bhyrapura gate on

Lingadahalli Tarikere Road at about 4.00 p.m., the

respondent No.1 drove the said vehicle rashly and

negligently with high speed endangering to human life and

dashed against the tree, as a result of which the appellant

and other members sustained grievous injuries on vital

parts of the body.

In the present case, the appellant is a minor girl of

one year old at the time of accident. In the accident the

appellant girl had sustained multiple abrasion +m over

face, fracture of femur left side as per wound certificate.

The appellant has taken treatment from Government

Hospital, Tarikere and Nanjappa Hospital, Shivamogga.

One of the injury sustained by the claimant/appellant is

grievous injury.

3. Hence, a claim petition was filed by the appellant

under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation

for the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal on

appreciating the materials on record, allowed the petition

in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs.52,290/-, along

with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till

the date of deposit. The Tribunal held that respondent

No.3 therein is liable to pay the compensation.

4. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the

appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.3 -

insurance company and perused the materials on record.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded

under various heads is on lesser side. It is stated that

parents of the appellant have spent more than Rs.30,000/-

to the medical expenses and the Tribunal has granted the

compensation of Rs.22,290/- towards medical expenditure.

Therefore, seeks for enhancement of the compensation.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel

appearing for the third respondent - insurance company

submits that at tender age the appellant has suffered

fracture and at this stage it might have been united

properly and the Tribunal is justified in passing the

impugned judgment and award and there is no ground for

enhancement. That the compensation amount as awarded

by the Tribunal is sufficient and adequate.

7. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

as follows:

 Pain and Suffering                           :    Rs.         25,000/-
 Medical Expenditure                          :    Rs.         22,290/-
 Food, Conveyance, etc.,                      :    Rs.          5,000/-
                                   TOTAL :         Rs.        52,290/-



      8.      The    appellant     -   claimant         has    sustained

multiple abrasion +m over face, fracture of femur left side.

Therefore, considering the factor that injury sustained by

the appellant and medical expenditure and as much as the

conveyance, transportation, food etc., and follow up

treatment, it is just and proper to award another additional

compensation of Rs.50,000/- globally without interest.

9. Therefore, the appellant is awarded a total

compensation of Rs.1,02,290/- as against the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.52,290/-.

Hence, the appellant is entitled for an additional

compensation of Rs.50,000/- globally without interest.

10. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

ii. The appellant is entitled for an additional

compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand Only) globally without interest in

addition to what has been awarded by the

Tribunal.

iii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court

Records to the Tribunal, along with certified

copy of the order passed by this Court

forthwith without any delay.

     iv.    Draw award accordingly.

     v.     No order as to the costs.




                                        Sd/-
                                       JUDGE



NS