Karnataka High Court
Master Mithun Gowda K vs Mr. Rajgouda R Patil on 27 June, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.3171 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN
MASTER MITHUN GOWDA K
S/O KUMAR
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN AND FATHER
SRI KUMAR
1ST CROSS, BEHIND KSRTC,
BUST STAND, IJOOR
RAMANAGARA TOWN-562159
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.RAJU S, ADV.)
AND
1 . MR. RAJGOUDA R PATIL
A/P SIGNAL , CHIKODI TALUK
BELGAUM DISTRICT.
2 . THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
FIRST FLOOR, RVR COMPLEX
OPPOSITE LIC OFFICE
2
BEHIND KSRTC BUS STAND
IJOOR, RAMANAGARA 562159.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAVISH BENNI, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH )
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:31.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.451/2014 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND CJM AND MACT, RAMANAGARAM, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE 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 dated 31.10.2018 passed by MACT,
Ramanagara in MVC 451/2014.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 4.6.2014 when the claimant,
Master Mithun Gowda, aged about 6 years was
standing on the left side of the road near bus stand,
Ramanagara, at that time, motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-23-U-6581 being ridden by its rider
at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner,
dashed to the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid
accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and
was hospitalized.
3. The claimant since minor represented by
his father 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 respondents
appeared through their counsel and filed written
statement in which the averments made in the
petition were denied.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter
recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was
examined as PW-1 and Dr.B.S.Jayaram was examined
as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1
to Ex.P31. On behalf of the respondents, neither any
witness was examined nor any document was
produced. 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.373,900/- 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
contended that the claimant was aged about 6 years
at the time of the accident. He has sustained swelling,
fracture of both bones above left ankle and abrasion
over left ankle medial mallives. He has examined the
doctor as PW-2. The doctor has deposed that the
claimant has suffered disability of 11.13% to whole
body. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was
not in a position to do day to day work and he has
taken further treatment. He has suffered lot of pain
during treatment. The Tribunal has failed to grant any
compensation for 'future medical expenses'.
Considering the nature of injuries, the overall
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower
side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company has contended that the
claimant is a minor boy aged about 6 years and a non
earning member. The injuries sustained by the
claimant are minor in nature. The Tribunal relying on
the decision of Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun
-v- Divisional Manager, National Insurance
Company Limited and Another (2014) 14 SCC
396 has rightly awarded just and reasonable
compensation and it does not call for interference.
Hence, he sought dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
9. It is not in dispute that the accident has
occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the
offending vehicle by its rider.
10. At the time of the accident, the injured was
aged about 6 years. As per wound certificate, the
claimant has sustained swelling fracture of both bones
above left ankle and abrasion over left ankle medial
mallives. He has examined the doctor as PW-2. The
doctor has deposed that the claimant has suffered
disability of 11.13% to whole body. Even after
discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position
to do day to day work and he has taken further
treatment. He has suffered lot of pain during
treatment. Therefore, considering the evidence of the
claimant and PW-2 and considering the nature of
injuries and further in view of the decision of Apex
Court in the case of Mallikarjun -v- Divisional
Manager, National Insurance Company Limited
and Another (2014) 14 SCC 396, I am inclined to
award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards 'future medical
expenses' in addition to compensation of Rs.373,900/-
awarded by the Tribunal
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in
part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
The claimant is entitled to a total compensation
of Rs.398,900/-.
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.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
