High Court Karnataka High Court

Kumari Sonabai D/O Bansiram, vs The Deputy Conservator, on 1 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Kumari Sonabai D/O Bansiram, vs The Deputy Conservator, on 1 September, 2010
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy
.0!"

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE 157 DAY OF SE¥"l'EMBER. 2010

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE   " 

MFA NO. 30733 or 2003   E.

BE} W EEN

KUMARI SONABAI D /0 BANSIRAM
AGE 15 YEARS, OCC STUDENT -
U /G OF HER REAL FATHER
BANSIRAM S/O. CHANDAR  _
AGED 40 YEARS, OCC C.QOL1E,_.««-« _  "
R/0 WASHER, TANDA, __   _  ..
NARAYANKHE1) NOW AT"E1EAR0 2, ;

-- V  1  ...APPELLANT
{BY SR1 SANTOS}! 131RA:)AR,. A«::>v--.)_ 

1 . 'rRE_1:5EP0T¥ VcrjrAJSERirA1UR,
OF F0-RES1', soC1A§,.._FoREsTRY DIVISION
.<B1T3AR - 53.5401

' E1REC'Ir.)R',"'
, KARNA'1'2'---\KA GOVT. INSURANCE
_  A.D'i1'.,_If~"1'; MQ"1j0R BRANCH
 ._ A B"ANG_I,oRE W 500001
' "   RESPONDENTS

{BYE SHRANABASAPPA K }3ABSI"IE'I'I'Y, HCGP)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF' MV ACT AGAINST 'I'I*'£E

"'..VJ0"r3t3M1«:N'1' AND AWARD DATED: 30.6.08 PASSED IN MVC

'em?'



-2"

NOK74/()3 E56/O3} ON THE FiLE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
¥'I'C--IV, 81 MACT. BIDAR, PARTLY ALLOV-'VINO THE CLAIM

PE'FE'I"IOE\l FOR COMPENSAUON AND SEEKING ENHANCEZMEENT

OF COMPENSATION.

This MFA coming on for admission, this 
court delivered the following:  v 0'  A'

JUDGMENT

This Miscellaneous First’;

Section 173(1) of the MV agai~ns’t– the

award dated 30.06.2008 passed in ll/i-VlCi’f\lol.l374/2003
on the file of the Preeitzangldo-ffieeeirrcmrv, MACT Bidar
partly allowingthe epehtlitionfor’eo-rnpensation and

seeking “enhancement; of coniperisation.

2.,’ This listed for admission. With the

consent. of the learned counsel for the appellant as well

Court Government Pleader for the

C” ~re’s.pon’de’n_ts~;this matter was heard on merits.

” Learned counsel for the appellant has

produced the certified copy of Ex.P-l. First. Information

,
e /0
‘bf

-3″

Report, EJx.P«2 Complaint, Ex.l?’»3 Spot Panchnama,
Ex.l?’-4~ Wound Certificate, l:’.x.P-6 Disability Certificate,

Ex.P–8 X»ray Report and also medical bills andlvhave

perused the same. The materials placed

Court is sufficient to dispose of this 1natter.l”~..:. ‘ in

4. Parties will be referrhecll

status in the Claims Tribunal.

5. The case of th’e:”‘elairnant Claims

Tribunal is as unclert”

VThai,~.o’ri thefnlinor claimant was going
by walk ltowartylisj at that time the car bearing

its driver ceune in rash and

njlannefanld hit to the claimant, as a result of

the the claimant sustained injures.

V was a .st’udent.

6,; age of the claimant was 10 years. She

£3;/’

“.4 ll;

7. Respondents have filed the objection

statement in the Claims Tribunal as under:
Averments made in the claim petition were all

denied. The alleged accident took place due to.th-e_l’1?ash

and negligent driving by the driver of

No.C.’i’.G–1004 is denied. The tregatment’vtjaiieririihy the’

minor claimant is also denied.

8. The sum and sub_stance_lof

Claims Tribunal is as under;

“Tri’i’31gii1ai relying on the oral evidence

of PW¥.l and evidence viz., Ex.P–1

certifiedcopy of complaint have come to a

ce:nlclti£S.ior1.. thaltllthelaccident occurred due to the rash

and 1 driving of the driver of car bearing

The Claims Tribunal has awarded a

Acompentsation of Rs.36,400/– with interest at 6% per

annfum from the date of judgment.

r»-sf

LA’ 5 JV

9. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the claimant
has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation.

10. The Claims Tribunal relying onithe it

of PW–1 and also documentary;evidence:

F.I.R, Ex.P~2 Complaint have coineito a conchisiionj

the driver of the vehicle in (ii1!%s’tion drove *the’:’vehic1e in
rash and negligentrrianner. ‘Vif1’heV.vVvrespondents though
taken contention thatntiiere negligence

on thei’part’:iieof but they have not
adduc’ed:the driver of the car. Normally

no Veontriibutorypfnegiigence can be contributed on the

m’in:or,.A’-sehiildrenii”Therefore the finding recorded by the

is so far as accident is concerned is

based appreciation of evidence and does not call for

interference.

-6-

11. The next aspect that a.rises for my
consideration is:

“Whether the compensation awarded by the
Claims Tribunal is reasonable or seeks

enhancement?”

12″ My answer to the above points_is- K V’

It is the contention of the

appellant that the claimant has illsustainedlaceratedvy

injury over the left frontallllftegion oflllthethealdg 2″ x 1/2″
skin deep. The the injury No.3 is
grievous in nature. of the learned

counsel that the Claims Tribunal has
over leekea .,E$<,.1:$;a_";j_isabi1ity Certificate wherein the

vvyhasllsustained permanent partial disability of

V limb at 40% and whole body disability is

is the X~ray report. Its contents disclose

that claimant has sustained following injuries:

sf? A. e'
%e//

W7"

i. Old healed fracture of mid shaft of left femur
noted.

ii. No lytic or sclerotic lesion seen in femur.

iii. No cafcification or foreign body seen .p’i’n_s0ft

tissues.

iv. Cortex medulla of femur are nor1i’:–a1.Ai A ~

Therefore he seeks for enhancjern’en’t0V __0f’

compensation amount.

13. Learned High Goverriemelnt for-it

respondents support thepu.—irr’1pn’gned’ fijurslgrrfent and

award. He submits f’e§§m:pe_11sdat.ion awarded by

the ‘Ilrib’un.ai’_:;pi’s ar.ni–.feasonal3Ie.
* the certified copy of the

Ex.AP«4 ddtiertificate. The wound certificate

disclosesthat c1aimant~So1’1aba1′ was treated at

:C.’:eneral..d.vIFf0’spitai, Humnabad on 09.02.2002 and she

has sustained Contusion of size 3″ x 2″ over the left

Z Abrasion over the right foot 3″ x 1″ bleeding

‘ Lacerated injuiy over the left frontal region of

{y

_ 3 –

the head 2″ X 3/2″ skin deep. According to the opinion of

the doctor the injury No.1 is grievous in nature. Injury
Nos.2 and 3 are simple in nature. Age of the injury

No.1 is 2 hours.

15. EX.P–6 is the Disability Certificate

Dr.V.S.Sajjanshetty, Orthopedic »AA»S.t,14rgeo~Vr’1H,l ” Ill!” 2

Its content discloses that

Bansi, R/0 Vasar is aged -about l’3.__years.: ‘on her”

physical and radiological elxairninationslor1–..’2.2§,03.20O5

discloses that, modergiteiyi.lV1″yvasted».VL”left thigh with

restricted mo\i”ernler1’tsfvof Shortening of
the limb by partiaily bent
femur. Partial loss ‘power the limb, not able to

walk E”S”L]pVV’I;\(‘)’I’t ofmflstick properly. Permanent

partial lower limb is 40% and whole

disability .

we

– 1.0 –

Wound Certificate, E:-<.P–6 Disability Certificate and also

EXP-8 X–ray Report. in my View the claimant is entitled
for a compensation of Rs.22,000/- under the head of

pain and suffering.

19. After the accident the

Walk without the help of stick, lllsufferetill

mentally. bodily pain. Thie.re1s’l

enjoyment of life by the A’I*he1’efor.el e._o’nsid’ering V it

this aspect, in my View — is “awarded under

the head of loss of amlen_i’tie’S.,V f

3:20.’ _A is the resident of Washer

Tanda.” The claimant has taken

Venkateshwar Clinic, Hurnnabad and also at

. ;l’l1’ereiore the claimant has taken treatment

at”‘differe’n”t places and since she was a minor and she

V. has gotsdifficulty in walking to attend different hospitals

em”

for treatment at different places. on attendant has to
accompany her to hospital therefrom the claimant is
entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/- under the head
of conveyance expenses, nourishment

attendant charges.

21. Considering that the

treatment at General

Venkateshwar Clinic at l?i’LirI1riabad~. :_laIi’d .l’3f(~ray at
Gulbarga, she has prodduicedLiniedicallf hills Worth

about Rs.6,395_/– into acc?o:int;j_–treatrnent taken

on dizvfferentfimedifcal .ce~nters.and also medical bills, it is
just and g reaso.nable__l””«t’o award compensation of

Cl! the head of medical expenses.

.:’vf’The claimant was a girl. aged about 10 years

,;)ln._VthVe accident. Due to the accident she has

sustained “fracture of mid shaft of left femur noted and

it also there is some disfigurement in the leg. Considering

Kc.-;»=’

_}2W

this aspect, under the head of less of marriage prqspect
and disfigurement it is just and reasonable t.ar.lz:ét1.2i_?a.rd

compensation of Rs. 15,000/–.

23. So far as the lossgbf ‘e«arn.ingr is

concerned, the learned e0unsell’.f__0i”-_V_the

marked the disability ce’i”~t.ifi–eateV. not’

examined the dOC’t:(Hf: the “disability
certificate is not by examining
the doctor theiicertiii€:at.e,:f”l’here is denial of
opportunity that the claim is
untr1;ie.l–VV the claimant is not
entitled Jforl under the head of loss of

earning Therefore the claimant is entitled for

.en’nari?:’ed”‘compensation as under:

R’ 0′ .ti:5;i0i;1 suffering Rs. 22,000 /-
amenities Rs. 10, 000 / —

a Medical expenses Rs. 8,000 / ~

A Attendant, nourishment

-13′

and conveyance charges Rs.

5,000/-

Loss of marriage ‘
prospects and

disfigurement Rs. it

Total

In all the claimant is entit”1ed_for a.’oompenS’atiAo:s_V

of Rs.60,000/–~.

24. The Claims “has awarded
Rs.36,400/– with interest’ 6%.’:.t1;§ér.V’tannum from the

date of is awarded also

from the date voi’t’t51ai.nf.=:, petition-.._:’Therei’orVe the claimant
is entitled for date of petition till
the date of rea1visationVat.(3% annum.

above discussion, I pass the

t

m

, 14 _
ORDER

1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is

allowed in part.

2. Compensation amount of

{Rupees Thirty mMThOuf5él”Il’d::’_’:Fljtlf_

Hundred Only) ask awaijde’d

Claims Tribunal is “–enha:ic:er;i” ° tdpli”

Rs. 60,000/-

Only).

3. The enhafieeci leoymperisaftiem. amount
shall ,_.bear”‘ihte3″est.:’a_t 6%: jjer annum

ef the date of

‘A ‘ 1’€:;1lis2’ition] _.

ll Paftiesio own Cost.

I’ …..

IUDGE