Karnataka High Court
Sneha D D/O D Kenchanagouda vs Rampura Erappa S/O Mahadevappa on 9 January, 2023
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
MFA No. 102088 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102088 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SNEHA D. D/O D.KENCHANAGOUDA
AGE 11 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REP/BY,
HER FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,
D. KENCHANAGOUDA S/O B. RAMAPPA
47 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: BENNIHALLI VILLAGE,
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
NOW R/O INDRA NAGAR, BALLARI-TQ.
...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI MANJUNATHA G. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAMPURA ERAPPA S/O MAHADEVAPPA
AGE YEARS, DRIVER OF TRAX,
ANNAPURNA BEARING REG.NO.KA-25/D-886,
CHINNAPPA R/O: AGADI VILLAGE, HUBBALLI-TQ.
DANDAGAL
2. MARUTHI R TALAVARA S/O RAMANNA T
Digitally signed by
ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA
DANDAGAL
AGE 36 YEARS, DRIVER OF TRAX,
Location: High court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, BEARING REG.NO.KA-25/D-886,
Dharwad
Date: 2023.01.17 11:04:28 -
0800
R/O: AGADI-VILLAGE, HUBBALLI-TQ.
-2-
MFA No. 102088 of 2016
3. THE MANAGER
SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
S-5, 3RD FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBER,
INFANTRY ROAD, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SURESH S. GUNDI FOR R3, ADVOCATE;
NOTICE TO R1 AND 2-DISPENSED WITH)
***
THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.01.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.708/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II, BALLARI, 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
Challenging judgment and award dated
01.01.2016 passed by M.A.C.T, Ballari (for short,
'tribunal') in MVC No.708/2013, this appeal is filed
by claimant for enhancement of compensation.
2. Brief facts as stated are that in an
accident that occurred on 13.08.2012 when a
MFA No. 102088 of 2016
tempo Trax bearing registration no.KA-25/D-886
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner
dashed against minor claimant, she sustained
crush injuries to her right leg and ankle. Despite
taking treatment, she did not recover fully and
sustained physical disability and deformity.
Claiming compensation for same, she filed claim
petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V. Act' for
short) against driver, owner and insurer of
offending vehicle.
3. Despite service of notice, driver and
owner did not entered appearance. They were
placed exparte. Only insurer contested claim by
denying claim petition averments and contending
that liability was subject to terms and conditions
of policy. Age, occupation, income and disability
sustained by claimant were disputed.
MFA No. 102088 of 2016
4. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed
issues and recorded evidence of guardian of
claimant and doctor as PWs.1 and 2 and got
marked Exhibits P1 to P279. Respondent did not
led oral evidence but, got marked copy of
insurance policy as Exhibit R1.
5. On consideration, Tribunal answered
issues no.1 in affirmative, issue no.2 partly in
affirmative and awarded total compensation of
Rs.4,23,840/- by holding insurer liable to pay
same with interest at rate of 6% per annum. Not
satisfied with quantum of compensation, claimant
is in appeal.
6. Shri Manjunath G.Patil, learned counsel
for appellant-claimant submitted that claimant was
a minor girl-student, aged about 9 years, who
sustained crush injuries to her right leg. Due to
same, there is severe deformity in right leg. It was
MFA No. 102088 of 2016
submitted that PW2-doctor who examined her,
assessed disability to extent of 20% to whole
body. However, Tribunal awarded inadequate
compensation sought enhancement of
compensation under all heads.
7. On other hand, Shri Kartik, advocate
appearing for Shri S.S.Gundi, learned counsel for
respondent-insurer submitted that since claimant
in instant case was a minor, compensation was to
be awarded as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Master Mallikarjun Vs
Divisional Manager, National Insurance
Company Limited & Another reported in AIR
2014 Supreme Court 736 and since, claimant
had sustained 20% disability, she would be
entitled to compensation under 2nd slab which
would be at Rs.3,00,000/-. Since, award is more
than said sum, there was no scope for
enhancement of compensation.
MFA No. 102088 of 2016
8. From above submission, occurrence of
accident due to rash and negligent driving of
insured vehicle, issuance of policy and its validity
as on date of accident are not in dispute. Tribunal
assessed compensation and held insurer is liable to
pay same. Insurer has not preferred any appeal.
Therefore, liability of insurer to pay compensation
is also not in dispute. Since, claimant is in appeal,
only point that would arise for consideration is:
"Whether claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation as sought
for?"
9. In view of fact that claimant is a minor,
ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
of Master Mallikarjun (supra) would be
applicable. On examination of 147 medical bills
produced, Tribunal awarded total compensation of
Rs.2,13,880/- towards medical expenses.
MFA No. 102088 of 2016
10. While awarding compensation towards
loss of income during period of treatment, it
considered duration of treatment as four months.
Since, claimant has sustained 20% disability, she
would be entitled for compensation under 2 n d slab
i.e., Rs.3,00,000/-. Hon'ble Supreme Court has
clarified that apart from said compensation,
claimant would also be entitled for compensation
towards actual amount spent on medical
treatment, loss of income of parents during
treatment etc.
11. Accident occurred in year 2012. There is
no specific evidence regarding income of parents.
Notional income for year 2012 is Rs.6,500/-. For
four months, it would be Rs.26,000/-.Tribunal has
awarded sum of Rs.2,13,880/- towards medical
expenses against bills produced. Therefore,
claimant would be entitled to said amount also.
MFA No. 102088 of 2016
12. Tribunal has also awarded sum of
Rs.50,000/- towards future medial expenses. As
adequate compensation is granted, it does not call
for any interference.
13. On perusal of Ex.P9-disability certificate
and copies of photographs marked as Exs.P8 to 11,
it is seen that claimant sustained deformity in
right leg. Therefore, claimant would be entitled to
compensation towards loss of marital prospectus
and amenities. In considered opinion, it would be
appropriate to award sum of Rs.40,000/- towards
same.
14. Thus, total compensation would be:
Rs.3,00,000/- + Rs.2,13,880/- + Rs.50,000/- +
Rs.40,000/- +Rs.26,000/-= Rs.6,29,880/-.
15. Point for consideration is thus answered
partly in affirmative.
MFA No. 102088 of 2016
16. In result, I pass following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part as against
compensation assessed by Tribunal at
Rs.4,23,840/-, claimant is held entitled
for compensation of Rs.6,29,880/- along
with interest at rate of 6% per annum as
awarded by Tribunal.
ii. Out of enhanced compensation, a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- is ordered to be released
in favour of claimant. Remaining amount
is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit in
any nationalized bank for a period of 5
years with provision for seeking release
in case claimant requires it for higher
education or marriage purposes.
iii. Insurers are directed to deposit
enhanced compensation within six weeks
from date of receipt of certified copy of
this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AM
