Partly allowed

Manjushree v. Sri Kantharaju

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2022MFA/4180/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal to enhance compensation for a minor accident victim. Relying on the Minor Insured Judgment, the court modified the Tribunal's award by adding specific heads for pain, suffering, and loss of parental earning to the retained medical expenses.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced total compensation awarded to/appellant at Rs.1,99,196/- by adding Rs.1,25,000/- for pain, suffering, and loss of parental earning; Insurance Company directed to deposit with interest.

Manjushree Vs Sri Kantharaju — Karnataka HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MFA No.4180 OF 2020(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Manjushree, D/o Umesh, Aged about 13 years, Rep. by natural guardian Father Umesh, S/o Rangashamaiah, Aged about 40 years, R/at Vaddanahalli Village & Post, Sira Taluk, Now R/at Byraveshwara Nilaya, Kuvempunagar, Near Water Tank, Tumkuru-572101. … Appellant

¶9

(By Sri.K.N. Sunil, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Sri. Kantharaju, S/o Nagappa, Aged major, R/o Nimbemaradahalli, Vaddanahalli Post, Sira Taluk Tumakuru Dist-572125.

¶12

The Manager,

¶13

United India Insurance

¶14

¶15

Company, Jayadeva Complex, 1^st Floor, B.H.Road, Tumkuru-572101, Rep. by its Branch Manager. ... Respondents

¶16

(By Sri.B.S.Krishna, Advocate for R2: Notice to R1 is served but unrepresented)

¶17

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated:10.03.2020 passed in MVC No.1216/2017 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Member, MACT, Tumakuru, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶18

This MFA, coming on for admission, this day, this Court, delivered the following:

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2020 passed by the VII Additional District Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Tumakuru in MVC No.1216/2017.

¶21

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 25.06.2017 at about 7.00

¶22

¶23

a.m. the claimant was walking on the road near Vaddanahalli bus stop, Honnehalli – Kallembella road, Bukkapatna Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru district. At that time, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA64/L-4579 being ridden by its rider at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was

¶24

hospitalized.

¶25

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that she spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.

¶26

On service of notice, the respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement

¶27

¶28

in which the averments made in the petition were

¶29

denied. The age of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the accident was due to the negligence of the claimant herself. It was further pleaded that the rider of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. It was further pleaded that the liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

The respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-parte.

¶31

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶32

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

¶33

¶34

recorded the evidence. The father of the claimant was examined as PW-1 and Dr.Prasad Murugappa Gowda was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. On behalf of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor got exhibited documents. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,17,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶35

The learned counsel for the claimant has contended that at the time of the accident the claimant was aged about 10 years. Due to the

¶36

¶37

accident the claimant has suffered grievous injuries, the Tribunal has assessed the whole body disability as 10%. But the Tribunal has failed to award compensation as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MASTER MALLIKARJUN –

¶38

vsDIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER

¶39

reported in (2014) 14 SCC 396. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶40

On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶41

the Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions:

¶42

Firstly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. The Tribunal considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of KISHAN GOPAL vs. LALA reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 has awarded just and reasonable

¶43

¶44

compensation. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶46

and perused the judgment and award.

¶47

It is not in dispute that the claimant has

¶48

sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶49

The Tribunal after considering the evidence of the parties and the evidence of the doctor – PW2 has rightly assessed the whole body disability as 10%. Since the claimant was a minor, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MALLIKARJUN (supra), if the disability is less than 10% Rs.1,00,000/- has to be awarded for ‘pain and suffering, inconvenience, etc’ and Rs.25,000/- for ‘discomfort and loss of earning to the parents’, in

¶50

¶51

addition to ‘medical expenses’ and 'future medical expenses'. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/towards ‘pain and suffering, inconvenience, etc’ and Rs.25,000/- for ‘discomfort and loss of earning to the parents’. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads 'medical expenses' at Rs.34,196/and 'future medical expenses' at Rs.40,000/- is retained.

¶52

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the

¶53

following compensation:

¶54

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Pain and suffering,	1,00,000
inconvenience, etc.
Discomfort and loss of earnings to the parents	25,000
Medical expenses	34,196
Future medical expenses	40,000
Total	1,99,196

¶55

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.

¶56

The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶57

¶58

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,99,196/as against

¶59

Rs.1,17,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶60

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment .

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

Cm/-

Manjushree v. Sri Kantharaju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjushree v. Sri Kantharaju

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

L.Basavaraj Vs Mohammed Rafeeq

Sri Puttaraju Vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd.

Mohammed Ali Afthab Vs Abdul Azeem

Vasanth Kumar Vs the Manager

The Branch Manager Vs Shankar T

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs N Kadirappa