Kum Harika R Reddy vs Sri Ramappa
2023 Latest Caselaw 1933 Kant

                                                   -1-
                                                             MFA No. 5820 of 2021




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

                                                BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY


                        MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5820 OF 2021 (MV-I)


                   Between:

                   Kum. Harika R. Reddy
                   Daughter of Ravindra Reddy,
                   Aged About 17 Years,
                   Since the Appellant is minor,
                   Reptd. By her natural Guardian
                   and father Sri S Ravindra Reddy,
                   S/o. S V Ramana Reddy,
                   Residing at No.4/172/1,
                   2nd Cross, R.R. Layout,
                   Mahadevapura Extention,
                   DRDO, Phase-II,
                   Bengaluru-560 016
                                                                       ...Appellant
                   (By Smt. Sreevidya G.K., for
Digitally signed
by BANGALORE       Sri. T N Viswanatha, Advocate)
MADHAVACHAR
VEENA
Location: High     And:
Court of
Karnataka

                   1.    Sri. Ramappa,
                         S/o. Narasimhappa,
                         Luggage Auto Owner,
                         Resident of Thadigolu Village and Post,
                         Srinivasapur Taluk,
                         Kolar District-563 135

                         RC Holder Of Goods Vehicle,
                         Bearing Reg. No.KA-07/A-7747
                                   -2-
                                          MFA No. 5820 of 2021




2.   M/s. Cholamandalam M.S. General
     Insurance Co. Ltd.,
     Represented by its Branch Manager,
     No.135/5, 15th Cross, 2nd Floor,
     J P Nagar III Phase,
     Bengaluru-560 078
                                                   ...Respondents
(By Sri. Mallikarjuna Reddy N.A., for
Sri.B. Pradeep, Advocate for R-2;
R-1 notice dispensed with vide order dt.16-11-2021)


                                  ****
      This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to call for the
records in M.V.C.No.3301/2018 and on the file of chief Judge,
Court of small Causes and Member, Principal Motor Accident
claims Tribunal, at Bengaluru (SCCH-1) and the impugned
judgment    and   award     dated   26-08-2020   passed   in   MVC
No.3301/2018 on the file of chief judge, Court of small Causes
and Member, Principal Motor Accident claims Tribunal, at
Bengaluru (SCCH-1) may kindly be modified by granting
compensation as claimed in the claim petition and this
miscellaneous first appeal may be allowed with costs, in the
interest of justice and equity.

      This Miscellaneous First Appeal coming on for Admission,
through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing, this day, the
Court delivered the following:
                             -3-
                                      MFA No. 5820 of 2021




                     JUDGMENT

The present appeal is filed by the minor claimant

under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

(herein after for brevity referred to as "the M.V. Act")

seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the

learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member,

Principal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore,

(hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Tribunal"), in

its judgment and award dated 26-08-2020 in

M.V.C.No.3301/2018.

2. The summary of the case of the claimant in the

Tribunal was that, on the date 11-02-2018, while the

claimant along with her father and mother was going in a

Motor Car bearing registration No.KA-53/P-9898, to go to

Madanapalli, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, to visit her

grand parents, at about 6:00 a.m., near Dandupalya Gate

of Chintamani Taluk, on Cuddapah-Bangalore Road, the

driver of the Goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-

07/A-7747 came from the opposite direction, in a rash and

MFA No. 5820 of 2021

negligent manner and dashed to the Motor Car. Due to the

said road traffic accident, the mother of the claimant -

Smt. Lalitha sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to

the said injuries on the spot. The other inmates of the

Car, i.e. the father of the claimant - Sri.S.Ravindra Reddy

and the present claimant sustained multiple injuries. They

were shifted to the Government Hospital at Chintamani

and thereafter to Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru. Stating that

at the time of the accident, she was a student studying in

IX Standard and the accident has occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the Goods vehicle,

the claimant, who was a minor in her age and was being

represented by her father Sri. S. Ravindra Reddy, claimed

compensation of a sum of `3,00,000/- from the

respondents, arraigning them as the owner and the

insurer of the said Goods Transport vehicle as respondents

No.1 and 2 respectively, for the injuries sustained by her

in the road traffic accident.

MFA No. 5820 of 2021

3. In response to the notices, respondents No.1 and

2 in the Tribunal appeared through their learned counsels.

Though Respondent No.1 did not choose to file his written

statement, however, respondent No.2 - Insurance

Company filed its written statement, denying the petition

averments. It denied the date, time, mode of accident and

also the injuries sustained by the claimant, amount spent

for treatment, etc. It contended that the alleged accident

was not intimated by the owner of the Goods vehicle and

also contended that the owner had failed to comply with

the requirements of Section 134 (c) of the M.V. Act. It also

contended that the driver of the Goods vehicle was not

holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the

particular class of vehicle as on the date of the accident, etc.

4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant being minor, her

father and natural guardian got himself examined as PW-1

and examined one Sri. Siddappa K. as PW-2 and

Dr.Nagaraj B.N. as PW-3 and got marked documents from

Exs.P-1 to P-28. On behalf of the respondents, neither

MFA No. 5820 of 2021

any witness was examined nor any document was

produced.

5. After analysing the evidence and the materials

placed before it, the Tribunal has awarded a global

compensation of a sum of `10,000/- with interest at `6%

per annum from the date of the petition till the date of

realisation. It is against the said judgment and award

passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal,

seeking enhancement of compensation.

6. The respondent No.2 (insurer) before this Court is

represented by its learned counsel. On a memo filed by

the learned counsel for the appellant, notice to respondent

No.1 (owner) is dispensed with vide order dated

16-11-2021.

7. Records are called for from the Tribunal and the

same are placed before the Court.

MFA No. 5820 of 2021

8. Learned counsel for the appellant and learned

counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurer is physically

appearing before the Court.

9. Though this appeal is listed at the stage of

admission, however, with the consent of the learned

counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for its final

disposal.

10. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused

the materials placed before this Court including the

memorandum of appeal, impugned judgment and also the

records of the Tribunal.

11. The present appeal being the claimant's appeal

and the respondent Insurer having not preferred either

cross-objection or a counter appeal, the question of the

occurrence of road traffic accident on the date, time and

place as alleged by the claimant and also the alleged rash

and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the

offending vehicle is not in dispute.

MFA No. 5820 of 2021

Further, the evidence of PW-1, the father of the

claimant, i.e. Sri. S. Ravindra Reddy, who was also the

injured in the connected M.V.C.No.3299/2018 and

M.V.C.No.3300/2018, got himself examined as PW-1. All

the M.V.Cs. were tried together by the Tribunal. He also

got produced the documents from Exs.P-1 to P-28, which

inter alia includes copy of the FIR, scene of offence

panchanama, IMV report, charge sheet and the wound

certificate of the present claimant. Those exhibits

corroborate the evidence of PW-1 and establishes that the

accident in question has taken place on the date, time and

place as alleged in the claim petition and in the manner

stated therein.

Further, the charge sheet at Ex.P-5 would also go to

show that, the liability for the rash and negligent driving

was fastened against the driver of the alleged Goods

vehicle only, as such, the occurrence of the accident on

the date, time and place as mentioned in the claim petition

and the claimant sustaining injuries in the said accident,

MFA No. 5820 of 2021

so also the rash and negligent driving on the part of the

driver of the alleged offending Goods vehicle in causing

the said road traffic accident stands established.

Thus, the only question that remains for

consideration is, whether the claimant is entitled for any

enhancement in the global compensation awarded by the

Tribunal in the matter.

12. The learned counsel for the appellant (claimant)

in her argument submitted that, even though the Tribunal

has awarded a global compensation of a sum of `10,000/-,

however, it ignored the fact that the injured claimant was

a High School going student, as such, on account of the

injuries sustained by her on her forehead, she has lost the

beauty of her face.

13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondent No.2 - Insurance Company, in his brief

argument submitted that, admittedly, the alleged injury

was an abrasion on the forehead of the claimant. The said

abrasion, for a growing girl of the age of the claimant

- 10 -

MFA No. 5820 of 2021

would completely recover and vanish within two days

leaving no scar on her forehead, as such, the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal would not warrant

any interference at the hands of this Court.

14. The father of the claimant - Sri.S. Ravindra

Reddy, who got himself examined before the Tribunal as

PW-1 has stated that, in the road traffic accident, the

present claimant i.e. his daughter - Kum. Harika Reddy

sustained three injuries which according to him are:

(i)injury on the forehead measuring 3 x 3 cm.; (ii) injury

on the right knee; and (iii) concussion injury of brain.

However, the wound certificate produced by the very

same witness marked as Ex.P-21 would go to show that,

the claimant Kum. Harika Reddy has sustained only one

injury, in the form of an abrasion on the forehead, as

such, the injury was considered to be simple in nature.

Thus it would go to establish that, the evidence of PW-1

that, his daughter - Kum. Harika Reddy had sustained

multiple injuries including concussion injury of brain

- 11 -

MFA No. 5820 of 2021

appears to be an exaggeration of the higher degree. The

Tribunal, considering that the claimant had sustained only

one simple injury on her forehead, has awarded a global

compensation of a sum of `10,000/-. No other medical

documents or medical bills and prescriptions are produced

with respect to the injuries sustained and the treatment

said to have been given to the claimant. As such, though

awarding a global compensation is warranted in the

circumstance, however, I am of the view that considering

the age of the claimant and the organ of the body on

which the said injury has taken place, and also considering

the fact that the injured was a School going girl, who had

sustained an abrasion on her forehead, I am of the view

that the global compensation awarded by the Tribunal at a

sum of `10,000/- is required to be enhanced by a sum of

`6,000/-, thus making it reasonable and just

compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case.

15. Since the quantum of global compensation

awarded by the Tribunal at `10,000/- is in short by a sum

- 12 -

MFA No. 5820 of 2021

of `6,000/-, for the said enhancement of a sum of

`6,000/- only, the impugned judgment and award passed

by the Tribunal deserves to be interfered with.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following :

ORDER

[i] The appeal filed by the claimant stands

allowed in part;

[ii] The impugned judgment and award

passed by the learned Chief Judge, Court of

Small Causes and Member, Principal, Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, dated

26-08-2020 in M.V.C.No.3301/2018, is hereby

modified to the extent that the compensation

awarded at `10,000/- is enhanced by a sum of

`6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only), thus fixing

the total compensation at `16,000/- (Rupees

Sixteen Thousand only).

- 13 -

MFA No. 5820 of 2021

[iii] The rest of the order of the Tribunal

with respect to fixing the liability upon the

respondents and directing the respondent No.2

herein - Insurance Company to deposit the

awarded amount, awarding the interest, its rate,

and the terms regarding release of the amount

awarded shall remain unaltered.

Draw the modified award accordingly.

Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment to the

concerned Tribunal, along with its records, without delay.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BMV*