Karnataka High Court
Master Yathish Kumar vs Suresh Khanna B on 10 October, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.655 OF 2020(MV)
BETWEEN
MASTER YATHISH KUMAR
S/O JAVEREGOWDA B
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS
R/AT NO.67, 2ND CROSS
KUMAR LAYOUT
THALAGHATAPUR
BENGALURU-560062
REPTED BY HIS FATHER JAVEREGOWDA B
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.UDAYA KUMAR R L., ADV.)
AND
1. SRI. SURESH KHANNA B
S/O BALASUBRAMANYAM
NO.6, ITC ROAD
3RD CROSS
KAMMANAHALLI
BENGALURU-560062.
2. THE HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
2
FLOOR NO.25/1, BUILDING NO.2
SHANKARNARYAN BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001
(REPRTED BY IS MANAGER)
3. XCHANGE LEASING INDIA PVT. LTD.,
SY NO. 36/3, NO.1245, SECTOR-2
HSR LAYOUT, SOMASUNDARAPALYA
NEAR POWER STATION
BENGALURU-560102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.S. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 & R3 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED: 24.03.2022)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DT.26.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.4488/2017 ON
THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-25), 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 26.8.2019 passed by MACT,
Bangalore in MVC 4488/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 22.3.2017 when the
claimant, aged about 6 years, was walking on left side
of road near Nandini Milk Parlor, Judicial Layout road,
Kanakapura Road, Thalaghattapura, at that time, car
bearing registration No.KA-01-AG-3081 being driven
by its driver 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, being 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 respondent No.2
appeared through counsel and filed written statement
in which the averments made in the petition were
denied.
The respondent Nos.1 and 3 did not appear
before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and
were placed ex-parte.
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 another witness was examined
as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1
to Ex.P11. On behalf of the respondents, one witness
was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents
namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R2. 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.1,10,572/- along with interest at
the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance
Company to deposit the compensation amount along
with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has
been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has
contended that as per wound certificate, the claimant
has sustained left tibia and fibula fracture. The
claimant is aged about 6 years at the time of accident.
He was treated as inpatient for a period of 3 days. He
has produced medical bills and prescriptions at Ex.P-8
and 9. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was
not in a position to discharge his routine work. He has
suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the
same, the overall compensation granted 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 and he has sustained simple
injuries and he has not examined the doctor regarding
disability and injuries suffered by him. Considering the
same, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable
compensation and it does not call for interference.
Further, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9%
p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher
side. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that the accident has
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver.
As per wound certificate Ex.P-6, the claimant has
sustained left tibia and fibula fracture. He was treated
as inpatient for a period of 3 days. He has produced
medical bills at Ex.P-8 and 9. He has not examined
the doctor regarding disability suffered by him.
Therefore, considering the evidence of the claimant
and nature of injuries mentioned in the wound
certificate, I am inclined to award compensation of
Rs.50,000/- in addition to compensation of
Rs.1,10,572/- awarded by the Tribunal.
10. 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.1,60,572/-.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest @ 9%
p.a. (enhanced amount shall carry interest at 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
