Partly allowed

Master Nithish v. Syed Ashfak

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2015MFA/5014/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous first appeal by a minor appellant challenges the compensation award in a motor vehicle accident case. The High Court held that compensation for the minor, suffering 15% disability, should be Rs.2,00,000. The court enhanced the award by allowing an additional Rs.1,01,520 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Entitled to a sum of Rs.1,01,520 as additional compensation along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition.

Master Nithish Vs Syed Ashfak — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2015)

¶1

MFA ��

¶2

��

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2015

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.5014 OF 2014 [MV]

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MASTER NITHISH REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SHIVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 11 YERS, R/AT LAKSHMIPURA EXTENSION SAKALESHPURA TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI: ABHIJITH.M.M., ADV)

¶10

AND

¶11

SYED ASHFAK S/O SYED ISAQ, R/AT.NO.1018, VIJAYANAGAR EXTENSION, THANNIRUHALLA, HASSAN TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶12

THE BRANCH MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,. KRITHIKA ARCADE,

¶13

MFA ��

¶14

��

¶15

HOLENARASIPURA ROAD, HASSAN.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI: B.PRADEEP, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 2.6.2015)

¶18

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 23.4.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.524/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, SAKALESHPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The appellant dissatisfied with the amount of

¶23

compensation awarded for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicles accident has filed this appeal, seeking enhancement.

¶24

The occurrence of the accident, rash and

¶25

negligent driving and involvement of the vehicle is not in dispute. The appeal is confined only to the quantum of compensation. The appellant is minor,

¶26

MFA ��

¶27

��

¶28

aged 9 years old and has suffered injuries to his left eye. There is 15% disability as opined by the doctor-P.W.3. In the circumstances, the Tribunal after recording the evidence has granted a sum of Rs.98,480-00. Dissatisfied with the said sum, the present appeal is filed.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant submits

¶31

the award of compensation is meager and it needs enhancement.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned Judgment and Award.

¶33

The perusal of the material placed on record reveals that the appellant is minor and has suffered disability to an extent of 15% as opined by the doctor-P.W.3. As held by the Apex Court in Mallikarjun’s Case reported in 2013 ACJ 2445 [Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, the National

¶34

MFA ��

¶35

��

¶36

Insurance Company Limited & anor.], the compensation in respect of the minor, who has suffered disability depends upon the percentage of the disability. As the appellant has suffered 15% of the disability, he is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,50,000-00 towards pain suffering, etc.

¶37

That apart, he is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000-00 towards discomfort and inconvenience suffered by his parents and also the loss he suffered due to their attendance to the hospital. Furthermore, he is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000-00 towards medical expenses. Thereby, the total compensation payable would be Rs.2,00,000-00. Deducting the sum of Rs.98,480-00 awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs,1,01,520-00 in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶38

In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed in

¶39

part. The appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,01,520-00 with interest at 6% p.a. from the

¶40

MFA ��

¶41

��

¶42

date of the petition till its payment in addition to

¶43

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Ksm*

Master Nithish v. Syed Ashfak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Master Nithish v. Syed Ashfak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director Vs Sri Basavaiah

Shivashankar @ Shivakumar Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Smt Jyothi W/O Late Ragavendra Vs M K Shivananjaiah

Sri Mohan Rao Vs a Saravanan

M/S Icici Lombard Gic Ltd. Vs Ramakrishnaiah

Sushma Vs Honnaiah