Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekar @ Chandrappa S/O ... vs Ravi S/O Fakkirappa Chinihalli on 22 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4411
MFA No. 102784 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102784 OF 2016
(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
CHANDRASHEKAR @ CHANDRAPPA
S/O JAGADISH MANNAGI,
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,
OCC:STUDENT, M/G HIS FATHER JAGADISH
S/O MAHADEVAPPA MANNAGI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O CHANDAPUR, TQ:SHIGGAON.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.S.M.KALWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAVI S/O FAKKIRAPPA CHINIHALLI,
AGED MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O KONANKERI, TQ:SHIGGAON.
Digitally
signed by 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
SAMREEN
SAMREEN AYUB
DESHNUR
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
AYUB
DESHNUR Date:
2024.02.23
DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.2,
16:39:06
+0530 ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR,
HUBBALLI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.249/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
HAVERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4411
MFA No. 102784 of 2016
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though the matter is listed for admission, same is
taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Sri.S.M.Kalwad, learned counsel for the
appellant and Smt.Preeti Shashank, learned counsel for
the respondent No.2.
3. Appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the
validity of the judgment and award passed in MVC
No.249/2013 dated 10.12.2015 on the file of Prl. Senior
Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Haveri.
4. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Claimant being a minor, met with a road traffic
accident that occurred on 12.11.2012 at about 8.30 a.m.
near bus stand of Chandapur village, involving a tractor
engine bearing No.KA.27/TA.4034 and trailer bearing
No.KA.26/TA.5713, on account of rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the said tracker and trailer unit. He
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4411
was shifted to the hospital and was treated there. Since,
the claimant is a young boy, all the injuries got cured.
5. Doctor has assessed disability to the extent of
15% for the particular limb. Insofar as, other fracture
namely the fracture of disc is concerned, there cannot be
any permanent disability. Moreover, P.W.2 is not a
treated doctor. Therefore, Tribunal took into consideration
all other aspects of the matter and on contest, allowed the
claim petition in a sum of Rs.1,72,500/-.
6. Being not satisfied with the quantum of
compensation, claimant is in appeal.
7. Sri.S.M.Kalawad, learned counsel vehemently
contended that the award of compensation in a sum of
Rs.1,72,500/- is on the lower side and thus, sought for
enhanced compensation.
8. Per contra, Smt.Preeti Shashank, learned
counsel contended that as per the dictum of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4411
Manager National Insurance Company Limited and
another reported in 2014 (14) SCC 396, since the
disability is within 10%, the claimant is entitled to a sum
of Rs.1,00,000/- with medical expenses. According to the
claimant, medical expenses is to the extent of Rs.69,000/-
9. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
10. On such perusal of the material on record,
accidental injuries sustained by the claimant has been
established before the Tribunal by placing sufficient
evidence on record.
11. Further, doctor has assessed the disability to
particular limb as 15%. Fracture is that of tibia.
Claimant was aged about 12 years as on the date of
accident. Fracture is united and other fracture that has
been taken place namely fracture of the disc, the same is
also cured. Since, P.W.2 is not a treated doctor, taking
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4411
1/3 of the disability factor in 5% by the Tribunal is just
rd
and proper.
12. As per the principles of law enunciated in the
case of Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager
National Insurance Company Limited and another
reported in 2014 (14) SCC 396, if the disability is less
than 10%, claimant would be entitled to the compensation
in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of pain and suffering
and other aspects plus the medical expenses.
13. In the case on hand, if the said principle of law
is applied, claimant would be entitled to sum of
Rs.1,69,000/- and all, were as Tribunal has granted
Rs.1,72,500/- for enhancement.
14. As such, there is no scope for enhancement of
the quantum of compensation.
15. Resultantly, the appeal needs to be dismissed.
16. Hence following:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4411
ORDER
i. Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed.
ii. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KAV
