This appeal challenges the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to a minor claimant who sustained 9% disability. The Court relied on the Master Mallikarjun judgment to enhance the compensation to Rs.1.5 lakhs.
Compensation enhanced from Rs.86,900/- to Rs.1,50,000/- with 6% per annum interest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6839 OF 2013 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
KUM. EERAMMA D/O DEVANNA @ DEVENDRA, AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI. DEVANNA @ DEVENDRA, R/O NO.5/12, KURDI MANVI TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SUNITHA B.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
(BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 21.08.2015)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1802/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND 35TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Though this appeal is posted for admission, as
records are received from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, it is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3
(henceforth referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in MVC No.1802/2011.
4
studying in third standard and that due to the injuries suffered, she could not pursue her studies. The claimant, therefore, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-
6. The claim petition was contested by the insurer
of the offending vehicle, who denied the accident and the negligence attributed to the driver of the offending vehicle. It accepted that the offending vehicle was covered by policy of insurance for the term 29.06.2010 to 28.06.2011. The insurer, however, contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess an effective driving licence and that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. It also contended that the claimant had contributed to the accident and therefore, contended that it was not liable to pay the compensation.
5
PW.1 and examined a Doctor as PW.2 and a witness as PW.3, who marked Exs.P1 to P12. In so far as the insurer is concerned, it did not lead any evidence and did not mark any document.
“Degloving injury of left foot dorsum of foot (crush injury) Exposed all the bones: Taken Seen fractured and dislocated metatarsals crushed and lacerated wound present about 20 x 10 cms.”
The claimant was admitted to Bowring and Lady Curzon hospital on 23.01.2011 and on 07.03.2011, she underwent
skin grafting on the left foot and was discharged on 22.03.2011. The Tribunal noticed the evidence of PW.2. He deposed that the claimant had suffered crush degloving injury of left foot, fracture of talus, ankle joint dislocation and comminuted fracture of metatarsals. The Tribunal
6
noticed the evidence of PW.2, who deposed that he examined the claimant on 09.05.2012 for assessment of disability and found clinically that the claimant was unable to stand and bear weight on the left leg and she experienced difficulty in sitting cross legged and to climb up and down the staircase and to walk on a slope. The Tribunal noticed the disability as deposed by PW.2 at 27% to the left lower limb and at 13% to the whole body. Having regard to the disability allegedly suffered by the claimant, the Tribunal held that the whole body disability suffered by her was 9%. Having regard to the fact that the claimant was aged 11 years as on the date of the accident, the Tribunal considered her notional income at Rs.15,000/per annum and having regard to the disability sustained by
her, awarded the following compensation:
| 1. | Compensation towards loss of income |
Rs.24,300**/-** |
|---|---|---|
| 2. | Compensation towards pain and suffering |
Rs.15,000**/-** |
| 3. | Compensation towards loss of amenities in life |
Rs.15,000**/-** |
| 4. | Compensation towards | Rs.5,000**/-** |
7
| disfigurement | ||
|---|---|---|
| 5. | Compensation towards loss of expectancy |
Rs.15,000**/-** |
| 6. | Compensation towards medical expenses |
Rs.2,600**/-** |
| 7. | Compensation towards attendant charges, food, nourishment and conveyance charges |
Rs.10,000**/-** |
| TOTAL | Rs.86,900/- |
compensation with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and directed the insurer of the offending vehicle to pay the same.
8
the claimant. He also contended that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Company Limited and another reported in AIR 2014 SC 736, even if the disability of the claimant is considered as less than 10%, then the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards the loss of income, pain and suffering and loss of amenities etc.
9
the Apex Court in Master Mallikarjun’s case (referred supra).
part . The impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal is modified and the compensation awarded to the claimant is enhanced from Rs.86,900/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The insurer – respondent No.2 herein is directed to deposit the compensation with interest as stated above within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/JUDGE
sma
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to a minor child suffering 9% disability deserves enhancement in light of the Apex Court judgment in Master Mallikarjun's case.
Whether the insurer is liable to pay the enhanced compensation with interest.
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded to a minor injured in a motor accident is reasonable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company LimitedRelied on¶49
Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Company Limited and another reported in AIR 2014 SC 736
2 provisions across 1 enactments
KUM. EERAMMA D/O DEVANNA @ DEVENDRA
SRI Y. LOKESH KUMAR S/O SRI. Y. RAGHUNANDHA REDDY
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD.
NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
