Karnataka High Court
Smt M V Lakshmi vs Govindaraju on 9 September, 2022
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
MFA NO.3610/2018(MV)
C/W
MFA NO.3731/2017, MFA NO.5088/2017,
MFA NO.5089/2017 AND MFA NO.5090/2017(MV)
IN MFA NO.3610/2018:
BETWEEN:
MASTER SIDHANTH
S/O NAGANANDA
NOW AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED
BY NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER
SMT. LAKSHMI M.V.
W/O NAGANANDA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
BOTH RESIDING AT
NO.861, MANTHRALAYA 7TH MAIN,
2ND STAGE, BOGADI NORTH
MYSURU-6
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA .N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOVINDARAJU S/O VENKATARAMAIAH
MAJOR IN AGE
RESIDING AT NO.20
JUTTANAPALYA VALIYAPPA COLONY,
BIDADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
2. BHARATHI AXA GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
2
PRIDE QUADRA NO.30
2ND FLOOR, HEBBALA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 024
REP. BY ITS MANAGER
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:17.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.169/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, ADDL. MACT,
CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.3731/2017:
BETWEEN:
SMT. M.V. LAKSHMI
W/O NAGANANDA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO.2902/2 K 21/1
2ND MAIN ROAD
CHAMUNDIPURAM
MYSORE
PERMANENTLY R/AT NO.861,
MANTHRALAYA, 7TH MAIN
2ND STAGE, BOGADI NORTH
MYSORE-570 001
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJU .S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOVINDARAJU S/O VENKATARAMAIAH
NO.20, JUTTANAPALYA
VALIYAPPA COLONY,BIDADI
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 001
3
2. BHARATHI AXA GENERAL NSURANCE CO. LTD.
PRIDE QUADRA NO.30
2ND FLOOR, HEBBALA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 024
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:17.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.167/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, ADDL. MACT,
CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.5088/2017:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
BHARATHI AXA GIC LTD.
PRIDE QUADRA NO.30
2ND FLOOR, HEBBALA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 024
THE LEGAL MANAGER
BHARATI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
1ST FLOOR, FERMS ICON
SURVEY NO.28
DODENCKUNDI OFF OUTER RING ROAD
BANGALORE
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP .B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M.V. LAKSHMI W/O NAGANADA
NOW AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO.2902, K 21/1
2ND MAIN ROAD, CHAMUNDIPURAM
MYSORE PERMANENTLY R/AT 861
MANTHRALAYA, 7TH MAIN
4
2ND STAGE, BOGADI NORTH
MYSORE-570 026
2. GOVINDARAJU S/O VENKATARAMAIAH
NO.20, JUTTANAPALYA VALIYAPPA COLONY
BIDADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 129
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. RAVINDRANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:17.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.167/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, ADDL. MACT,
CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,77,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6%
P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
DEPOSIT.
IN MFA NO.5089/2017:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
BHARATHI AXA GIC LTD.
PRIDE QUADRA NO.30
2ND FLOOR, HEBBALA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 024
THE LEGAL MANAGER
BHARATI AXA GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.
1ST FLOOR, FERMS ICON
SURVEY NO.28
DODENCKUNDI OFF OUTER RING ROAD
BANGALORE
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP .B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NAGANADA .N S/O K.A. NAGENDRA
NOW AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT NO.861, MANTHRALAYA
5
7TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE
BOGADI NORTH
MYSORE-570 026
2. GOVINDARAJU S/O VENKATARAMAIAH
NO.20, JUTTANAPALYA VALIYAPPA COLONY
BIDADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 129
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. RAVINDRANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:17.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.168/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, ADDL. MACT,
CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,86,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6%
P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
DEPOSIT.
IN MFA NO.5090/2017:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
BHARATHI AXA GIC LTD.
PRIDE QUADRA NO.30
2ND FLOOR, HEBBALA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 024
THE LEGAL MANAGER
BHARATI AXA GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.
1ST FLOOR, FERMS ICON
SURVEY NO.28, DODENCKUNDI OFF
OUTER RING ROAD, BANGALORE
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP .B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SIDHANTH S/O NAGANANDA
NOW AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS
SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS MOTHER
SMT. LAKSHMI M.V. NATURAL GUARDIAN
6
R/AT NO.861, MANTHRALAYA
7TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE
BOGADI NORTH, MYSORE-570 026
2. GOVINDARAJU S/O VENKATARAMAIAH
NO.20, JUTTANAPALYA VALIYAPPA COLONY
BIDADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 129
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. RAVINDRANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:17.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.169/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, ADDL. MACT,
CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.17,79,320/- WITH INTEREST AT
6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
DEPOSIT.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 23.08.2022, COMING ON
FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT' THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by the claimants as well as
the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and
award dated 17.03.2017 passed by the Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC and Additional MACT, Channapatna (for
short, 'Tribunal') in MVC Nos. 167/2014, 168/2014 and
169/2014.
2. Though MVC Nos.167/2014, 168/2017 and
169/2017 were filed independently by the respective
claimants, since they were arising out of the same
accident, they were clubbed together and disposed of
by the Tribunal under the common judgment and
award dated 17.03.2017.
3. MFA No.5088/2017 (arising out of MVC
No.167/2017), MFA No.5089/2017 (arising out of MVC
No.168/2014) and MFA No.5090/2017 (arising out of
MVC No.169/2014) are filed by the 2nd respondent -M/s.
Bharathi Axa General Insurance Company Limited (for
short, 'Insurance Company/Insurer') respectively
questioning the liability as well as quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. MFA No. 3610/2018 (arising out of MVC
No.169/2014) and MFA No. 3731/2017 (arising out of
MVC No.167/2014) are filed by the petitioners/claimants
seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal vide impugned judgment and award.
5. It is submitted that MFA No.3730/2017
(arising out of MVC No.168/2014) filed by the Insurance
Company against the impugned judgment and award
dated 17.03.2017 passed by the Tribunal, is settled
before the Lok-Adalat. Hence, in view of the settlement
of dispute in Lok-Adalat, MFA No.5089/2017, which is
also arising out of MVC No.168/2014) does not survive
for consideration.
6. The factual matrix in these appeals are that,
on 20.01.2014 at about 3.30 p.m., the
petitioners/claimants and deceased Smt. B.R. Lalitha
were travelling in a car bearing No. KA.09.N.3418 on
B.M. Road in front of KSPTS, Channapatna. At that
time, the driver of Tipper Lorry bearing No.
KA.42.N.1035 drove it with high speed and in rash and
negligent manner and suddenly without any indication,
applied break. As a result, the lorry hit the car on the
rear end and due to which, one B.R. Lalitha sustained
fatal injuries and succumbed, while other petitioners
sustained grievous injuries.
7. In MFA No.3610/2018 arising out of MVC
No.169/2014, the appellant/claimant-Master Sidhanth
was a minor aged two years and he is the son of
another claimant-M.V. Lakshmi. In the said case, the
Tribunal after considering the nature of injuries
sustained by the minor petitioner/claimant, has partly
allowed the claim petition and awarded a total
compensation of Rs.17,79,320/- with interest at 6%
per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the above said
claim petition, the petitioner/claimant represented by
his Natural Guardian, has filed MFA No.3610/2018
seeking enhancement, while the Respondent
No.2/Insurance Company has filed MFA No.5090/2017
disputing the liability as well as the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC
No.169/2014.
8. MFA No.3731/2017 is filed by another
petitioner/claimant-Smt. M.V. Lakshmi in MVC
No.167/2014, seeking enhancement of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,77,000/- in respect of
injuries sustained by her in the said accident. At the
same time, the Insurance Company has also filed MFA
No.5088/2017 (arising out of MVC No.167/2014)
disputing the liability as well as quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
9. In MVC No.168/2014 filed by the
petitioner/claimant-Sri. Nagananda N., the Tribunal has
awarded compensation of Rs.1,86,000/- with interest at
6% per annum from the date of petition, till realisation.
Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner/claimant-Sri. N.
Nagananda has filed MFA No.3730/2014 before this
Court seeking enhancement of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company fairly submits that the appeal filed by the
Claimant-Sri. N.Nagananda in MFA No.3730/2017
arising out of MVC No.168/2014 is settled before the
Lok-Adalath, and as such, the appeal filed by Insurance
Company in MFA No.5089/2017 arising out of same
claim petition in MVC No.168/2014 does not survive for
consideration.
11. It is evident from records that, in MFA
No.3730/2017 (arising out of MVC No.168/2014),
though the appellant/claimant had sought for
enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
subsequently, the said appeal came to be settled before
the Lok-Adalat. Therefore, in view the settlement
arrived between the parties in MFA No.3730/2017
arising out of MVC No.168/2014, the appeal in MFA
No.5090/2017 filed by the Insurance Company
questioning quantum as well as liability, does not
survive for consideration, as rightly submitted by the
learned counsel for appellant/Insurer.
12. In all these petitions, common defence is
taken by the respondents No.1 and 2. Both the
respondents have appeared before the Tribunal and
filed a written statements denying the allegations and
assertions made in the claim petitions. It is denied that
the accident was due to actionable negligence on the
part of the driver of the offending Lorry. However,
Respondent No.2/Insurer has admitted the coverage of
insurance Policy and further contended that the
liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the
policy.
13. Heard the arguments advanced by the
learned counsels appearing on behalf of claimants and
the learned counsels appearing on behalf of Insurance
Company in all these appeals. Perused the records.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants
would contend that the minor claimant in MVC
No.169/2014 (MFA No.3610/2018) has suffered severe
head injury and the disability is assessed at 75% by
the Medical Officer, which is accepted by the Tribunal.
However, the Tribunal has not awarded any
compensation under the head of Loss of Future
Earning. The Tribunal ought to have taken minimum
wage pertaining to skilled worker by adding 40% of
income towards Future Prospects by applying multiplier
of '18'. Hence, he would contend that though the
injured was a minor of tender age, he was completely
bed-ridden and his future is completely destroyed.
Hence, he would seek for enhancement of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
15. Further, learned counsel for claimants has
submitted that the appellant/claimant-Smt. M.V.
Lakshmi in MFA No.3731/2017 which is arising out of
MVC No.167/2014, was inpatient for 7 days and the
compensation awarded under the head of Pain and
Suffering was on lower side and it needs to be
enhanced. It is further submitted that only two months
Laid-up Period is taken and it ought to have been taken
as three months and no compensation was awarded
under the head of Food, Nourishment and Attendant
Charges and as such, appropriate compensation is to be
awarded under this head and sought for allowing this
appeal.
16. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
Insurance Company in MFA No.5089/2017, which is
arising out of MVC no.168/2014 would contend that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side.
He would fairly submits that, though initially the liability
is disputed, in view of settlement of the matter before
the Lok-Adalath in MFA No.3730/2017 arising out of
MVC No.168/2014 pertaining to the same accident, he is
not disputing the liability, as such, he would submit that
he is now restricting the arguments only with regard to
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. He
would further contend that the claimant/minor injured
was hardly aged two years as on the date of accident
and though there is no serious dispute regarding
disability, compensation under the head of Future
Medical Expenses Rs.3,00,000/- is awarded by the
Tribunal, which is on higher side and hence, he sought
for interference of this Court in this regard.
17. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company would further submits that, in respect of other
claimant-Smt. M.V. Lakshmi in MVC 167/2014
pertaining to MFA No.3731/2017 is concerned, the
Doctor who treated the petitioner/claimant was not at
all examined and the compensation awarded under the
head of Pain and Suffering as well as Loss of Amenities
is on higher side and the same requires to be reduced.
Hence, he would seek for allowing the appeals filed by
the Insurance Company.
18. Having heard the arguments advanced by
the learned counsels appearing on both sides and
perusing the records, it is evident that the offending
Lorry was moving on Bengaluru-Mysuru Road in front of
the car in which the claimants were travelling and
when the said lorry was suddenly stopped without any
signal, as a result the car hit the lorry on back side and
as such, the accident occurred. Though initially there
was an attempt to dispute the liability on the ground of
contributory negligence, during the course of
arguments, the learned counsel for Insurance Company
has fairly submitted that since the claim petition in MVC
No.168/2014 (MFA No.3730/2017) arising out of the
same accident having been settled before Lok-Adalat,
now the Insurance Company is not pressing the issue of
liability and as such he requests the Court to consider
the issue only regarding quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, considering this
submission, now the Court has to appreciate the
evidence on record regarding quantum.
19. Further, it is evident that the accident has
occurred on 20.01.2014 at about 3.30 p.m., when the
Car in which the petitioners/claimants were travelling
was hit the Tipper Lorry moving ahead, as the driver of
offending Tipper Lorry, without following the traffic
rules, suddenly and abruptly stopped the lorry without
any indication or signal, which has resulted in injuries to
the minor petitioner and as well as one Smt. M.V.
Lakshmi. Now, let us first consider regarding the appeal
in MFA No.3610/2018 arising out of MVC No.169/2014,
filed by the minor claimant-Master Sidhanth, wherein
the Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.17,79,320/- under the following heads:-
Sl. Particulars Amount (RS.)
No.
1 Pain and Suffering already
undergone and to be suffered
in future, mental and physical
shock, hardship,
inconvenience and discomfort 5,00,000/-
etc and loss of amenities in
life on account of permanent
disability
2 Discomfort, inconvenience
and loss of earnings to the
parents during the period of 9,320/-
hospitalisation
3 Medical and incidental
expenses during the period of 9,70,000/-
hospitalization
4 Future Medical Expenses 3,00,000/-
Total 17,79,320/-
20. As could be seen from the medical records,
the minor claimant in the said case has suffered
Traumatic brain injury, right temporal contusion, right
MCA territory infarct, left external iliac DVT, fracture of
5th RIB on right side, aspiration pneumonitis and
bilateral frontal subdural hygromas. He was treated in
BGS Global Hospital as an inpatient from 20.01.2014
till 02.03.2014 and it is also evident from records that,
he underwent surgery. At the same time, it is also
important to note here that, when the said accident
took place, the age minor was one year. Learned
counsel for the appellants/claimants would contend that
there are 07 head injuries and disability was taken at
75%, which was accepted by the Tribunal. But, the
aspect of Future Loss of Earning Capacity was not
considered and hence, according to him, even on the
basis of minimum wage pertaining to skilled worker and
by adding 40% of income towards Future Prospects of
Life, the compensation ought to have been awarded. In
support of his contention he has placed reliance on the
evidence of PW.2-Dr. Veeresha U. Mathad and also
placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Civil Appeal Nos.2205 & 2206/2022 rendered on
29.03.2022 in case of Master Ayush Vs. The Branch
Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and
Another.
21. At the out-set, on perusal of evidence of the
Doctor (PW.2), it is evident that, he has given evidence
only the basis of documents regarding injuries. Further,
he is not the Doctor, who treated the injured claimant,
but he is working in BGS Hospital since last one year.
The accident has occurred in the year 2014 and as on
that date, PW.2 was not working in BGS Hospital. In his
cross-examination, PW.2 admits that, he has not
treated the injured child and he fairly states that, he
examined the injured only for assessment of disability,
and he further admits that the Doctor who treated the
injured claimant is still working in BGS Hospital. He
further admits that, at the time of discharge, the Doctor
who treated the injured claimant, has assessed his
health condition. He further admitted that, when the
minor petitioner/claimant was discharged, he was aged
one year and he also admits that since last one year, he
is treating that child. But, no such medical documents
relating to statement of PW.2 are forthcoming. He
further admits that from Ex.P13-Out patient slip, it is
evident that on 27.03.2014, the petitioner has visited
the BGS Hospital and thereafter on 12.03.2016 i.e.,
after two years, he has examined the minor claimant.
Hence, it is evident that after discharge, the injured
approaching the Doctor who treated the injured is not
forthcoming. Further his evidence discloses that,
evacuation of bifrontal subdural fluid under general
Anasthecia was done on 03.02.2014 and the petitioner
withstood the procedure very well. Further he deposed
that the petitioner developed pseudomeningocele at the
burr hole sites and his repeat CT Scan showed
significant subdural hygroma which persisted despite
aspiration. But, subsequently the same has been
resolved. His further evidence discloses that the
petitioner gradually improved and was shifted to ward
and he was also started oral feeding, which he tolerated
well and he was weaned off the naso jejuna tube feeds
and naso jejuna tube was removed. Further, the
evidence of PW.2 discloses that the petitioner improved
neurologically and his evidence further discloses that at
the time of discharge, he was hemodynamically stable
opening eyes spontaneously, but he was not obeying
commands and he had weakness and spasticity in left
upper and lower limbs. According to him, the petitioner
will be having some permanent neurological disability as
a consequence of his head injury. He further deposes
that the claimant is having severe speech problem and
left side spastic hemiparesis and he is not able to walk
on his own. But, that does not demonstrate to take
functional disability to 100% as claimed since the
treated doctor is not examined, who was available and
serving in hospital. According to him, he had moderately
below average IQ with 67 and impaired congnitive
abilities. Hence, he has assessed the disability to the
extent of 75% to whole body. On the basis of these
aspects, the learned counsel for the claimant contend
that it is functional disability and hence, he placed
reliance on a decision in the case of Master Ayush
referred supra and sought for awarding compensation
under the head of Loss of Future Income also.
22. In case of Master Ayush, the was aged about
eight years and was suffering from Traumatic Pontiac
Paraplegia following T.10-11 spinal card lesion dur to
road traffic accident. Further, in the said case, the child
was not able to walk due to poor motor and sensory
recovery in LL muscles. But, no such evidence is
forthcoming in the instant case. In the instant case, the
child is hardly one year when it met with accident.
Under these circumstances, the principles enunciated in
the decision of Master Ayush (cited supra), cannot be
made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
case in hand. The Tribunal after relying the decision
of Hon'ble Apex Court in Master Mallikarjun Vs.
Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Co. Ltd.
and Another [AIR 2014 SC 736], has considered the
disability at 75% and awarded global compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- under the head of Pain and Suffering
including loss of amenities etc., which is just and
reasonable and does not call for any interference.
23. In the case on hand, the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.9,70,000/- towards Medical Expenses,
Incidental charges during hospitalization and
Rs.3,00,000/- towards Future Medical Expenses. The
learned counsel claims that he has records to show that
he has already spent nearly more than Rs.2,00,000/-
subsequently. Considering these aspects, under this
head, no further enhancement is required and at the
same time, any reduction is also not possible. Hence,
the compensation awarded under these heads is just
and proper and does not call any interference.
24. Under the head of discomfort, inconvenience
and loss of earnings to the parents during the period of
hospitalization of minor claimant, the Tribunal has
awarded only Rs.9,320/-. The Tribunal has only
considered 40 days hospitalization of the minor claimant
by taking notional income at Rs.7,000/- per month.
Admittedly, the accident has occurred in the year 2014
and merely because the minor claimant was admitted in
hospital for 40 days is not a ground to deny the loss of
income to parents, as the parents are likely to apply
leave to take care of the injured child. Considering the
nature and gravity of injuries suffered by the child, at
least it needs three months to the child to become
stable. Looking to these facts, the claimant would be
entitled to compensation for three months in respect of
loss of earning to his guardian.
25. This Court is consistently taking income
pertaining to the accident occurred in the year 2014 at
Rs.8,500/- per month. Hence, considering this aspect,
it would be just and proper to award an additional
compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the head of Loss
of Income to Guardian during the laid-up period of
claimant. In addition to that, considering the nature
and gravity of injuries, in my opinion, it is just and
proper to award Rs.20,000/- under the head of
attendant charges, nourishment etc.
26. In the facts and circumstances, the
appellant-minor/claimant in MFA No.3610/2018 is
entitled for total revised compensation of
Rs.18,15,000/- under the following as under:
Sl. Particulars Amount (Rs.)
No.
1 Pain and Suffering already
undergone and to be suffered
in future, mental and physical
shock, hardship,
inconvenience and discomfort 5,00,000/-
etc and loss of amenities in
life on account of permanent
disability
2 Medical and incidental
expenses during the period of 9,70,000/-
hospitalization
3 Future Medical Expenses 3,00,000/-
4 Loss of income to the
Guardian of claimant during 25,000/-
his laid-up period
5 Incidental charges viz.,
attendant, conveyance etc.to
the guardian of minor 20,000/-
claimant during his laid-up
period.
Total 18,15,000/-
27. As regards the claimant-M.V. Lakshmi in
MFA No.3731/2017 is concerned, she has suffered
Blunt abdominal trauma, splenic trauma grade-III,
fracture of left acetabulum and scalp laceration, and
she took treatment as an inpatient in BGS Global
Hospital from 20.01.2014 till 27.01.2014. Admittedly,
these injuries are grievous in nature. The Tribunal has
awarded total compensation of Rs.1,77,000/- under the
following heads:
Sl. Particulars Amount (RS.)
No.
1 Pain and Suffering 60,000/-
2 Loss of Amenities and 40,000/-
Happiness
3 Medical and Incidental 65,000/-
charges
4 Loss of earnings during laid 12,000/-
up period
Total 1,77,000/-
28. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company
in MFA No.3731/2017 has argued that the compensation
awarded under the head of Pain and Suffering and Loss
of Amenities is on higher side. But, considering the fact
that, she was admitted in the hospital for nearly seven
days and she was the mother of the minor child, who
suffered head injury, her trauma cannot be
compensated in terms of money. Further, though the
learned counsel for claimant asserts that no
compensation was awarded under the head of disability,
there is no evidence in respect of this claimant suffering
any disability. Hence, question of enhancing or
reducing compensation awarded by the Tribunal in
respect of claimant-Smt. M.V. Lakshmi in MFA
No.3731/2017 and MFA No.5088/2017 arising out of
MVC No.167/2014, does not arise at all.
29. In the facts and circumstances, the appeals
in MFA No.3731/2017 and MFA No.5088/2017 which are
arising out of MVC No.167/2014, do not survive for
consideration. However, MFA No.3610/2018 arising out
of MVC No.169/2014 needs to be allowed-in-part, while
appeal filed by the Insurance Company in MFA
No.5090/2017, which arises out same case ie., MVC
No.169/2014, needs to be dismissed.
30. Apart from the above observation, in view of
settlement of dispute amicably in MFA No.3730/2017
(arising out of MVC 168/2014) before Lok-Adalat, MFA
No.5089/2017, which is also arising out of MVC
No.168/2014, filed by the Insurance Company against
impugned judgment and award, does not survive for
consideration. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
i) The appeal in MFA No.3610/2018 is allowed-in-
part. The impunged judgment and award dated
17.03.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC and Additional MACT, Channapatna (for
short, 'Tribunal') in MVC No. 169/2014, stands
modified.
ii) The minor appellant/claimant-Master Sidhanth is
held entitled for total compensation of
Rs.18,15,000/- as against Rs.17,79,320/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
iii) The enhanced compensation of Rs.35,680/-
(Rs.18,15,000 - Rs.17,79,320) shall carry interest
at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of
petition till the date of realistion.
iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation with interest accrued
thereon, within six weeks from today.
v) The enhanced compensation amount along with
interest accrued thereon, shall be released in
favour of the Natural Guardian of the minor
petitioner/claimant, who has filed the claim
petition No.169/2014 and MFA 3610/2018.
vi) The MFA No.3731/2017 filed by the
petitioner/claimant-Smt. M.V. Lakshmi and the
appeals in MFA No.5088/2017, MFA
No.5089/2017 and MFA No.5090/2017 filed
by the Insurance Company are dismissed.
The statutory deposit made by the Insurance
Company before this Court in MFA No.5088/2017, MFA
No.5089/2017 and MFA No.5090/2017, shall be
transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGR*
CT:NR
