Partly allowed

Sri M Prajwal Kumar @ M Prajwal v. Sri Nagaraj S/O Rudrappa H

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2012MFA/6639/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a motor accident case, the High Court allowed an appeal by a minor claimant seeking enhanced compensation. While affirming amounts for medical bills and pain/suffering as just, the Court granted Rs.50,000 extra for loss of amenities and disfigurement, instructing the insurance company to deposit the amount with interest within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.50,000 awarded at 6% p.a. interest from date of petition until payment; Respondent-Insurance Company ordered to deposit amount within six weeks.

Sri M Prajwal Kumar @ M Prajwal Vs Sri Nagaraj S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K N KESHAVANARAYANA

¶6

M.F.A. No. 6639/2008 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.M.PRAJWAL KUMAR @ M.PRAJWAL, AGED 7 YEARS, S/O MALLIKARAJUN.V., MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN-FATHER MALLIKARJUN V., S/O M.VASANTHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT MADARAKERE, AYANUR, SHIMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT. …. APPELLANT (BY SRI.S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶9

A N D:

¶10

SRI.NAGARAJ, S/O RUDRAPPA.H., AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT AYANUR, SHIMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT. (RIDER- CUM -OWNER OF HERO HONDA BEARING REGN. No.KA-14-S-6868)

¶11

¶12

M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, GARDEN AREA BRANCH, SHIMOGA CITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶13

... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. C.SHANKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 6.4.2009 )

¶15

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.11.2007 PASSED IN MVC No.768/2006 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT-I, SHIMOGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶16

THIS M.F.A. COMING FOR HEARING ON THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of

¶19

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant, who is the minor, represented by his father and natural guardian, is in appeal before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶20

1. According to the claimant, in the motor

¶21

¶22

vehicle accident that occurred at about 11.45am. on 24.06.2006, he sustained injuries to his left ear and other parts of the body and since the upper half of the left external ear had been completely damaged, it was removed. Thus, according to the claimant, he has suffered permanent disability on account of the loss of half of the left ear-pinna and this has affected his future prospectus of the marriage apart from resulting in disfiguration of his face. After contest, the claim petition was allowed in part awarding total compensation at

¶23

Rs.94,516/- under different heads, as under:-

¶24

For loss of ear cartilage and fracture in the left clavicle bone and agony	Rs. 50,000.00
For attendant charges and special diet during
the period of treatment	Rs. 5,000.00
Future Medical expenditure for reconstruction of ear	Rs. 20,000.00
Medical expenditure supported by the bills	Rs. 14,515.56
Conveyance charges supported by bills	Rs. 5,000.00
Total	Rs. 94,515.56
Rounded Off to	Rs. 94,516.00

¶25

¶26

Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation,

¶27

the claimant has presented this appeal.

¶28

The principal contention urged in this appeal

¶29

is that the compensation awarded towards pain and sufferings inclusive of the fracture and loss of ear cartilage at Rs.50,000/- is on the lower side; that though the medical evidence indicates that for the plastic surgery for the purpose of reconstruction of the left ear, a sum of Rs.45,000/- is required, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.20,000/-; that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for loss of amenity and dis-figuration; that the compensation awarded towards attendant charges, special diet during the treatment as well as conveyance charges are too low and that no compensation is awarded for the loss of earning of the guardian of the injured, while the injured was taking

¶30

¶31

treatment as inpatient in the hospital. Therefore, the claimant has sought total compensation of Rs.4,76,500 under different heads.

¶32

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant as well as the respondent-Insurance Company and perused the records secured from the Tribunal.

¶33

There is no dispute regarding occurrence of the accident as well as the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, who is the minor. The claimant as per the evidence on record, was treated as inpatient in the hospital for about 18 days. During this period, the damaged upper half of the left ear was removed. The fracture of the left clavicle was reduced.

¶34

Having regard to the nature of the injury as well as the duration of treatment, in my opinion, award of Rs.50,000/- towards the injuries, pain and

¶35

¶36

sufferings, is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement.

¶37

The award of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant

¶38

charges and special diet during the treatment as well as award of Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance charges are

¶39

just and proper and does not call for any enhancement.

¶40

No grievance is made-out by the claimant

¶41

regarding award of Rs.14,515/- granted towards the medical expenses as per the medical bills produced. No doubt, it is stated in his evidence that for the purpose

¶42

of plastic surgery to upper half of the left ear, the amount required to be spent is around Rs.40,000/-. However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- for this purpose. Though more than six years have elapsed form the date of the accident and though the Insurance Company has paid the entire compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal together with interest, which

¶43

¶44

has been disbursed as per the terms of the award, no attempt appears to have been made till now to get the left ear of the claimant reconstructed by means of plastic surgery. If really the claimant had undergone reconstruction of the ear by means of plastic surgery and had spent any amount over and above Rs.20,000/-, certainly, he would have been entitled for reimbursement of the amount spent. It is also not forthcoming as to whether the claimant would undergo plastic surgery for reconstruction of the ear. Therefore, in my opinion, the compensation awarded for reconstruction of the ear does not deserves to be enhanced.

¶45

I see considerable force in the contention of

¶46

the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal ought to have awarded reasonable compensation towards the loss of amenities and dis-figuration on account of removal of upper half of the left external ear.

¶47

¶48

It has certainly resulted in dis-figuration of the face and this would certainly have adverse effect on his marriage prospects. It may also come in the way of hearing capacity of the appellant in the left ear. According to the evidence of the Doctor, even if the claimant undergoes plastic surgery for reconstruction of the left ear, it would not be upto the stage of normalcy.

¶49

The claimant is a young boy presently aged 10 or 11 years. He has a long life ahead of him. He would be certainly under trauma on account of social stigma since he has torn left ear. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities, dis-figuration and loss of marriage prospects, if any. Thus, the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation by Rs.50,000/-.

¶50

¶51

In view of the above, the appeal is allowed in part. It is ordered that the petitioner is entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs.50,000/- over and above

¶52

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% pa. from the date of petition till the date of payment.

¶53

The Respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest within six weeks from today. The disbursement of the enhanced compensation shall be as per the terms of the award.

¶54

SD/JUDGE

¶55

KGR*

Sri M Prajwal Kumar @ M Prajwal v. Sri Nagaraj S/O Rudrappa H

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Prajwal Kumar @ M Prajwal v. Sri Nagaraj S/O Rudrappa H

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri R Manjappa

Rudresh S/O Kariyaiah Vs the Divisional Manager the New India Assurance Co.

Smt Vinoda Murthy Vs N Raghavendra S/O N Gururaja

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Miss v Tejaswini

Smt T Girijamma Vs N Karibasavaraju

Nagarathnamma @ Rathnamma Vs the Director M/S a L Sudarshan Construction Co. Ltd.