Master Rajesh Vs Sri Basavaraj R

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6374 MFA No. 1623 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1623 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MASTER RAJESH, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS SON OF MACHAGIRI RAJAN @ RAJU, RESIDING AT NO.10-42, KAKINADA, TORUBU GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, (SINCE APPELLANT IS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MACHAGIRI RAJAN @ RAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SON OF LATE SAVAYYAN) …APPELLANT

¶8

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

(BY SRI. T.P. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

SRI. BASAVARAJ R, MAJOR BY AGE, SON OF RAMASWAMY V, NO.57/2, ASHWATHA KATTE ROAD, 4TH CROSS, DEVASANDRA, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶11

M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL

¶12

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6374 MFA No. 1623 of 2017

¶13

INSURANCE CO. LTD., CENTENARY BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, BY MANAGER.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. D. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1938/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIII ACMM, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

Heard Sri. Srinivasa T.P, learned counsel for the appellant who appears physically before this Court. Also heard Sri. D.Vijay kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 who appears through video conference.

¶21

The claimant in M.V.C. No.1938/2015 that stood

¶22

pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6374 MFA No. 1623 of 2017

¶24

Bengaluru and was disposed of through order dated 30.07.2016 is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶25

On the ground that he sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 09.03.2015, the petitioner being represented by his father filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in total. The tribunal through the order dated 30.07.2016 awarded a sum of Rs.2,66,570/- as compensation.

¶26

Arguing the matter, Sri. Srinivasa T.P, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant sustained fracture of left femur apart from other multiple injuries. He took treatment as inpatient at different hospitals for a considerable period. During the course of treatment, he underwent a surgery also. The appellant produced sufficient evidence to establish the nature of injuries sustained by him and also the aspect of disability. However, without considering the evidence produced, the

¶27

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6374 MFA No. 1623 of 2017

¶28

tribunal awarded meager sum as compensation. Learned

¶29

counsel thereby seeks for enhancement of compensation.

¶30

Per contra , the submission that is made by

¶31

Sri.D.Vijayakumar learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the appellant is not left with any kind of disability more so as narrated by PW-2. Learned counsel submits that the appellant was aged about 12 years by the date of accident. Learned counsel contents that the tribunal has awarded justifiable sum as compensation and therefore the award needs no interference.

¶32

The tribunal through the impugned order granted

¶33

a sum of Rs.2,66,570/- as compensation divided under

¶34

following heads:-

¶35

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Pain and sufferings	20,000-00
Attendant charges, Extra nutritious food and transport expenses	7,000-00
Medical Expenses	1,39,570-00
Loss of future earning	1,00,000-00
capacity and loss of
amenities and happiness
Total	2,66,570-00

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6374 MFA No. 1623 of 2017

¶37

Undisputedly, the appellant was aged about 12

¶38

years by the date of accident. Also it is not in dispute that the appellant sustained multiple abrasions over face, over left knee, an injury over left eye and fracture of left femur.

¶39

Through the material produced more particularly through the evidence of PW-2 and Ex.P-7 Discharge summary, the appellant succeeded in establishing that he underwent a surgery i.e., closed reduction and internal fixation of nail. The evidence of PW-2 is that he examined the appellant and on examination he found that the appellant is suffering with 33.5% disability in respect of left lower limb and 17% in respect of whole body. PW-2 during the course of cross examination deposed that the fracture is well united. The tribunal having taken the disability in respect of whole body as 10% awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards loss of future earnings and loss of amenities in life.

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6374 MFA No. 1623 of 2017

¶41

In the decision that is rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Master Mallikarjun -vs-

¶42

Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another , the Court dealing with an identical situation where the surgeon has assessed the disability to an extent of 34% in respect of right lower limb and 18% to the whole body, awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under the head pain and suffering, discomfort and loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court at para-12 held as

¶43

under:-

¶44

"Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs upto 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakhs. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Re.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick".

¶45

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6374 MFA No. 1623 of 2017

¶46

The disability as assessed by PW-2 in respect of whole body is above 10% and below 30%. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in the light of the decision that is referred supra, the appellant is entitled to a sum of RS.3,00,000/- as compensation under all other heads except medical expenses. Medical expenses to the extent

¶47

established is Rs.1,39,570/-. Therefore, total compensation which the appellant is entitled to get is Rs.4,39,570/- (Rs.3,00,000 + 1,39,570/-). The tribunal through the impugned order has awarded a sum of Rs.2,66,570/-only.

¶48

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded by the tribunal requires enhancement. Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following:-

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶51

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6374 MFA No. 1623 of 2017

¶52

ii. The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore through orders in M.V.C.No.1938/2015 dated 30.07.2016 is enhanced from Rs.2,66,570/- to Rs.4,39,570/- .

¶53

iii. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶54

iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶55

v. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount subject to filing sufficient proof before the Tribunal to the effect that he attained the age of majority.

¶56

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶57

VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 CT: BHK

Master Rajesh v. Sri Basavaraj R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Master Rajesh v. Sri Basavaraj R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Gayathri B.P Vs Sri. Mali Suresh

Sri M a Papachan Vs Sri. Lokesha

Smt Arpita @ Keerti Jagadeesh Ramadurg @ Arpitha H.N. Vs Sri Jagadish @ Jagadish S Ramadurga

Master Shukruth Gowda Vs Smt. Dyvamma

Lokeshappa @ B.V. Lokesh Vs K P Mohan

Smt. Vaishnavi D Vs Sri. H R Shivaprasad