Master Harisha vs The Deputy Commissioner of Police

P.D. Waingankar, J.—This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act is filed against the judgment and award dated 01.02.2013 in MVC No. 8160/2010 on the file of the X Additional Small Cause Judge and MACT, Bangalore, for enhancement of compensation.

The brief facts of the case which gave rise to filing of this appeal are as under:

On 22.03.2009, at about 7.30 p.m., the claimant a minor boy aged about 7 years while walking on the left side of Kengeri Ring Road, Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No. KA-02-G-371 belonging to respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the minor boy causing him grievous injuries, for which he was treated as inpatient. Parents have spent substantial amount for his treatment and inspite of best treatment he suffered disability. As such, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/-, a claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act. Claim petition was opposed by the respondents. It came up for consideration before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by impugned judgment and award," Warded a total compensation of Rs. 1,51,075/- together with'' 8% interest thereon from the date of petition till the date of realisation from respondent No. 1.

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred this appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on all heads is on the lower side and it requires to be enhanced considerably.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Perused the records.

Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on all heads is on the lower side having regard to the nature of injuries and 15% permanent disability suffered by the claimant. Therefore, it requires to be enhanced.

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the Tribunal on proper appreciation of the material placed on record has rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 1,51,075/- which is just and reasonable compensation and no interference is called for and that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Having heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader for the respondents and upon consideration of the entire material on record, the only point that arises for my determination is as under:

"Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?"

It is borne out from the records that the appellant/claimant sustained fracture of left femur apart from other two simple injuries for which he was treated conservatively by PW-2-Dr. C. Channesh, Orthopedic Surgeon. The Doctor who has been examined as PW-2 went on record to depose that the claimant sustained fracture of left femur, Contusion with laceration of both upper and lower lips, Cut injury over the right elbow. Further, PW-2 went on record to depose that he examined the claimant on 02.10.2012 and found that he had irregular scar and tenderness over the left femur, pain and swelling over the left hip and knee joint, difficulty to stand and walk for long time, unable to sit, squatting and cross legged, weakness of the thigh muscles and leg muscles, limping of the left lower limb and restricted movements of the left knee joint and ankle joint. Having regard to the nature of injuries, nature of treatment and the disability said to have been suffered by the claimant, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- under the head pain and sufferings, Rs. 30,000/- under the head loss of amenities in life, Rs. 5,000/- towards disfigurement, Rs. 32,575/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 8,000/- towards attendant charges, food and nourishment and conveyance charges, Rs. 5,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs. 40,500/- towards loss of future income. Having regard to the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2009, the claimant is a young boy of 7 years and that he was treated conservatively, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all the heads appears to be just and reasonable compensation. There is no merit in this appeal. Hence, I pass the following order.

The appeal is dismissed.