Karnataka High Court
Devi Prasad vs The National Insurance Co. Ltd on 17 October, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.5783/2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
DEVI PRASAD,
S/O B. BABU,
AGD ABOUT 19 YEARS,
R/O LAXMI COMPOUND,
NEAR SWARASWATHI WORK SHOP,
MOGAVEERAPATNA, ULLALA,
MANGALORE TALUK-575020.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GURUPRASAD B.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
BHARATH BUILDING,
P.M. RAO ROAD,
MANGALORE T ALUK-575001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
2. MR. SUDESH MAROLI,
S/O RAVINDRA MAROLI, ASHAYA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
VIDYARANYA NAGAR, ULLAL,
MANGALORE TALUK-575020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH
VIDEORDER DATED 27.01.2015)
2
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.02.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.97/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT III, D.K,
MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the
consent of both the learned counsel it is taken up for final
disposal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for respondent No.1.
3. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and
award dated 24.02.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.97/2011, on the
file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, MACT III,
D.K., Mangalore ('the Tribunal' for short).
4. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant, who is
aged about 16 years, before the Tribunal is that he met with an
accident and he had sustained segmental fracture of both the
bones of right leg, type I compound avulsion fracture of left
lateral tibial condyle anemia and he was an inpatient from
21.02.2011 to 28.03.2011 for ineffective non-union of both the
bones of right leg. Again he was admitted to the hospital on
02.04.2012 and discharged on 06.04.2012 for removal of
implants. In support of his claim, he examined his father as
P.W.1 and examined the doctor as P.W.2 and got marked the
documents at Exs.P.1 to 23. On the other hand, the Insurance
Company got marked the copy of the policy as Ex.R.1. The
Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record, under the head pain and suffering awarded an
amount of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.90,000/- towards medical
expenses as against Rs.1,10,864.92/- and also awarded an
amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head attendant charges as he
was an inpatient for a period of 46 days and also awarded an
amount of Rs.15,000/- under the head nutrition and traveling
expenses. Towards loss of income during laid up period, taking
the income of Rs.1,500/- per month, awarded an amount of
Rs.6,000/- and for loss of future earnings awarded an amount of
Rs.29,700/- and under the head loss of amenities awarded an
amount of Rs.10,000/-. In all, the Tribunal awarded an amount
of Rs.2,00,700/-. Hence, the present appeal is filed before this
Court.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would
vehemently contend that the compensation awarded under all
the heads are very meager and the entire medical bills are not
considered. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company
would submit that the Tribunal has taken note of the nature of
injuries and the compensation awarded under different heads is
on the higher side and hence the claimant is not entitled for any
enhancement.
7. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also
on perusal of the material available on record, the claimant had
suffered fracture of both the bones as well as type I compound
avulsion fracture of left lateral tibial condyle anemia. Having
taken note of he was an inpatient for a period of 46 days and
also he was subject to surgery and the evidence of the doctor,
who is examined as P.W.2 is clear that the fractures are
malunited and assessed the disability of 34% and the Tribunal
has taken 11% disability to the whole body. Having taken note
of he is a minor and the nature of injuries sustained i.e., type I
compound avulsion fracture of left lateral tibial condyle anemia,
the Tribunal ought to have taken more disability, however, the
Tribunal has taken 11% disability. In view of the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of MASTER MALLIKARJUN v.
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2013
KAR 4891, in case of disability between 10% to 30%, the
claimant is entitled to Rs.3,00,000/-.
8. When the injured was an inpatient for a period of 46
days, the parents have lost their income. Having taken note of
he was an inpatient for a period of 46 days, it is appropriate to
award an amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head loss of income
to the parents.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to the
notice of this Court that the medical bills to the tune of
Rs.1,10,864.92/- is produced and the Tribunal awarded only an
amount of Rs.90,000/- on the ground that some bills at
Sl.Nos.82, 83, 85, 87 and 119 appears to be on the higher side.
On perusal of those documents, they are the receipts issued by
the doctor, who have treated the injured. When such being the
case, it is appropriate to consider all the bills and those bills
contain the signature with seal and the doctors have also issued
the receipts and it is a case where the claimant was subjected
for surgery and surgery charges receipts are also issued. When
the consultation charges receipts are also produced, the Tribunal
ought to have considered the entire amount. Hence, it is
appropriate to award an amount of Rs.1,10,865/- under the
head medical expenses.
10. In all, the claimant is entitled for an amount of
Rs.4,35,865/- as against Rs.2,01,000/-.
11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal dated 24.02.2014, passed in
M.V.C.No.97/2011, is modified granting
compensation of Rs.4,35,865/- as against
Rs.2,01,000/- with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till deposit.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the
compensation amount with interest within six
weeks from today.
(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records
to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
