1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

M.F.A. NO.7459 OF 2017 (MV-INJ)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

UDUPI DIVISIONAL OFFICE, UDUPI

NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS

REGIONAL MANAGER

REGIONAL OFFICE, 2^ND FLOOR

SUMANGALA COMPLEX

LAMINGTON ROAD

HUBLI-580 020

...APPELLANT

(BY SMT. HARINI SHIVANANDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. KUMARI SAHANA

AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS

REP. BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL

GUARDIAN SMT. SUMATHI H. SUVARNA

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

R/AT SAHANA HOUSE

BRAHMARI, LEMINA CROSS

NITTE VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK

2. SRI. AVINASH

S/O SRI. VENKATARAMA UPADYAYA

AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

R/AT DEVASYA HOUSE

NEAR VISHNUMOORTHY TEMPLE

NITTE VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK

& RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. NAGESH V. PAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

2

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST

THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.06.2017 PASSED IN MVC

NO.47/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. MACT,

KARKALA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,52,180/- WITH INTEREST

AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF

REALIZATION FROM THE RESPONDENTS.

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

1.

The captioned appeal is filed by the Insurance Company

questioning the quantum.

2.

The 1^st respondent-claimant who is a minor child filed a

claim petition through her natural guardian for having

sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident dated

19.03.2016.

3.

The 1^st respondent-claimant sustained fracture of left

femur. Hence, by contending that she has suffered permanent

disability filed a claim petition claiming compensation. The 1^st

respondent - claimant in support of her contention examined

her natural guardian mother as PW-1 and examined one

witness as PW-2 and adduced documentary evidence vide

3

Exs.P1 to P28. The appellant - Insurance Company did not

chose to lead any ocular evidence and produced a copy of the

insurance policy vide Ex.R1 and also case sheet at Ex.C1. The

Tribunal having assessed oral and documentary evidence

awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and agony,

Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.15,000/- towards

nourishment and attendant charges, Rs.42,180/- towards

medical

expenses,

.Rs.10,000/-

towards

conveyance,

Rs.45,000/- to the parents towards loss of income during laid

up treatment and Rs.1,50,000/- towards inconvenience. The

Tribunal in all awarded Rs.3,52.180/-.

4.

Smt.Harini Shivananda, learned counsel appearing for

the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal

memo would vehemently argued and contend before this

Court that the Tribunal has virtually awarded a higher

compensation on all the heads. She would further contend

that the Tribunal has not assigned any reasons while awarding

a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards inconvenience. She would

4

submit to this Court that the award of Rs.1,50,000/- towards

inconvenience is without any basis and the same is contrary to

the principles laid by the Apex Court Master Mallikarjun vs.

Divisional

Manager,

National

Insurance

Company

Limited [(2014) 14 SCC 396]. She would also further

submit to this Court that in regard to the disability, the 1^st

respondent-claimant has not produced any medical evidence

and no doctor is examined. Therefore, she would submit to

this Court that the compensation, more particularly, under the

head of inconvenience to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- is

erroneous and therefore, warrants interference in the hands of

this Court.

5.

Per contra, Ms.Deepti, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of Sri.Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel for the 1^st

respondent-claimant would vehemently argue and contend

that the compensation determined by the Tribunal is fair and

just and may not warrant any interference at the hands of this

Court. She wo