Heard.

2. The claimant before the Small Causes Court,

Bangalore City, Bangalore in MVC No.4436/2010 was a

four year old child. She met with an accident on

10.06.2010 at about 3.45 PM when the claimant was

standing on the road along with her father. A Bolero

bearing No.KA-51-A-363 being driven in high speed

dashed against the claimant. The claimant sustained

injuries on her right foot and ankle exposing the

tendons of the metatarsal bone. She was treated in the

hospital and a petition was filed by her father claiming

compensation.

3

3. The petition was filed against the owner of the

offending vehicle who was arrayed as 2^nd respondent

before the Tribunal and the insurance company -

respondent No1. The Tribunal after considering the

evidence on record has held that the claimant is entitled

for compensation as there was valid insurance policy

and the insurance company was held liable to pay the

compensation of Rs.42,000/-.

4.

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation,

the claimant has filed the instant appeal. The insurer

has satisfied the award. The only question that is

required to be considered is, "Whether the claimant is

entitled for enhancement of compensation?"

5.

As could be seen from the impugned

judgment, the Tribunal has awarded compensation as

under:

4

Sl.

No.

Heads

Amount (Rs.)

1.

Pain and suffering

20,000-00

2.

Inconvenience caused to

the parents

7,000-00

3.

Medical expenses

NIL

4.

Loss of amenities

10,000-00

5.

Attendant

charges,

conveyance, nourishment

and diet etc.

5,000-00

TOTAL 42,000-00

6.

The impugned judgment would indicate the

injuries was sustained by the claimant. At paragraph

11 of the judgment, tribunal noted the injuries which

reads as under:

"Abrasion over the right foot and ankle

exposing the tendons and partial grace of the

metatarsal bone".

7.

The injuries are reflected in Ex.P.5 - the

wound certificate issued by Sanjay Gandhi Accident

Hospital & Research Institute where the claimant was

treated. The doctor has opined that the injuries are

5

grevious in nature. The discharge summary would

indicate that the child was in the hospital from

10.06.2010 to 21.07.2010 which would disclose that

she was in the hospital for 40 days. The discharge

summary would also indicate that claimant has

undergone debridement and skin grafting procedure.

Claimant has also produced photographs which would

reveal the nature of injuries sustained by the 4 year old

girl child. Photographs are marked at Ex.P.10. Ex.P.11

is the CD pertaining to the above said photographs of

the claimant. Claimant has also produced the medical

records of the Sanjay Gandhi Accident Hospital &

Research Institute, Bengaluru. The official from the

hospital is also examined as PW2.

8.

Learned counsel for the respondent Sri O

Mahesh would contend that the photographs are not

proved in accordance with the requirements of Indian

6

Evidence Act. The claimant was required to examine

the doctor to prove the injuries. It is also his case that

the documents produced by the claimant are created in

collusion with the hospital authorities, as such, the

tribunal is justified in awarding compensation of

Rs.42,000/-. It is also the contention of the learned

counsel for the respondent that the claimant has

received reimbursement of medical expenses from the

Chief Minister Fund. The evidence placed on record

would indicate that the claimant has received medical

expenses reimbursed from the Chief Ministers Fund,

therefore, the tribunal has not awarded any expenses

under the head 'medical expenses'.

9.

The question for consideration by this Court

is, "Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal

under

various

heads

referred

above

is

just

compensation or not?"

7

10.

Though Mr O Mahesh, learned counsel for

the 1st respondent seriously disputed the photographs

showing injuries of the victim, looking into the cross

examination of PW1 - the father of the child, this Court

is of the opinion that there is no dispute relating to the

photographs of