In the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru Dated This the 8Th Day of July 2016 Before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice B Manohar Mfa N

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR MFA No.3186 OF 2016 C/W MFA No.3187 OF 2016 (MV) In MFA No.3186/2016 BETWEEN: T.S. PRAJWAL S/O SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS R/P BY NEXT FRIEND NATURAL FATHER SHIVALINGAIAH S/O LINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS TAVAREKERE, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571403 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI M.Y. SREENIVASANI, ADV.,) AND: 1. SHIVAPRAKASH B M S/O NANJUNDAPPA MAJOR, BIDARAKOTE VILLAGE MADDUR TQ, MANDYA DISTRICT-571410 2. THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., NO.1119/8, KAMBALI BUILDING M.C.ROAD, ASHOKA NAGARA MANDYA CITY-571401 ... RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.500/15 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, MADDUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. 2 In MFA No.3187/2016 BETWEEN YASHAWANTH KUMAR T.M S/O MAHENDRA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS TAVAREKERE, MANDYA DISTRICT-571403 …APPELLANT (BY SRI M.Y. SREENIVASAN, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SHIVAPRAKASH B.M S/O NANJUNDAPPA MAJOR BIDARAKOTE VILLAGE MADDUR TQ. MANDYA DISTRICT-571410 2. THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.1119/8, KAMBALI BUILDING M.C.ROAD, ASHOKA NAGARA MANDYA CITY-571401 …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.501/15 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, MADDUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The Common judgment and award dated:01.02.2016 passed in MVC Nos.500/2015 and 501/2015 is challenged in these appeals. Hence, 3 both the cases are clubbed together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellants in these appeals filed claim petitions contending that on 08.12.2014 at about 06:30 p.m. while they were proceeding in a bicycle on the left side of Basaralu-Koppa road, when they were in front of Gayathri Rice Mill, a tempo bearing registration No.KA-19/8831 driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner with a high speed, dashed against the claimants’ bicycle and caused the accident. Due to the said impact, both the claimants fell down and sustained injuries. They have taken treatment in Government Hospital, Mandya and they were treated as inpatients for a period of three days. They claim that in view of the injuries sustained in the accident, they have spent a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively, towards medical expenditure. Hence, they sought for compensation of Rs.9,75,000/- each. 4 3. The claimant in MVC No.500/2015 was aged about 13 years and was studying in 7 th standard, whereas, the claimant in MVC No.501/2015 was aged about 17 years and was studying 2 nd PUC at the time of accident. In view of the injuries sustained, they could not concentrate on studies. Due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the tempo, the accident occurred and the offending vehicle was insured with the 2 nd respondent. Accordingly, both the respondents were held liable to pay the compensation. 4. In pursuance of the notice issued by the tribunal, insurance company entered appearance and filed written statement and denied the age, occupation and also contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial has been conducted. The tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, held that the claimant in 5 MVC No.500/2015 has sustained fracture of distal end of both bones of right forearm. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 03 days and POP was applied. The Doctor who has treated the claimant assessed the disability to an extent of 29% to the particular limb. The tribunal taking into consideration the decision rendered in the case of MASTER MALLIKARJUN Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., AND ANOTHER – (2014 KANT M.A.C.11 (SC)), awarded a sum of Rs.1,04,000/- with 7% interest per annum. 6. Insofar as, claimant in MVC No.501/2015 is concerned, he has sustained extensor tendon injury to right hand ring finger and right hand thumb with multiple lacerated wounds. The doctor who has treated the claimant assessed the disability to an extent of 17% to the particular limb. The claimant has not sustained any fracture. In view of that, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- with 7% 6 interest per annum. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have preferred this appeal. 7. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the judgment and award and oral and documentary evidence. 8. In MFA No.3186/2016, the appellant has sustained fracture of distal end of both bones of right forearm and he has not undergone any surgery. Conventional treatment has been given to him and POP was applied. The doctor has assessed the disability to an extent of 29% to the particular limb. The tribunal relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun referred to supra, awarded just and fair compensation of Rs.1,04,000/- with 7% interest per annum, same is in accordance with law and there is no scope for enhancement or modification of the 7 judgment and award of the tribunal is also not required. 9. In MFA No.3187/2016, the appellant has sustained extensor tendon injury to right hand ring finger, right hand thumb with multiple lacerated wounds. He has not undergone any surgery but conventional treatment has been given for the injury sustained. Tribunal considering the same, awarded a just and fair compensation of Rs.30,000/- with 7% interest per annum which is in accordance with law and same does not call for interference and modification of the judgment and award. The appellants have not made out a case for enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. Sd/ JUDGE HJ .

Load more