Karnataka High Court
Kumar Prashant Nagangouda Patil, vs Siddanagouda Babagouda Patil, on 29 May, 2017
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N. Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA
MFA. No.20366/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
KUMAR PRASHANT NAGANGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: LAXMI GALLI, BALEKUNDRI KHURD,
TAL : DIST: BELGAUM
SINCE THE APPELLANT HEREIN IS MENTALLY DISABLED
PERSON, HENCE R/BY NATURAL FATHER AS GUARDIAN
SHRI.NAGANAGOUDA S/O RUDRAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE.
.. APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADV.)
AND:
1. SHRI. SIDDANAGOUDA BABAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS AND DRIVER,
R/O: MOHARE, TQ: BAILHONGAL,
DISTRICT: BELGAUM.
(OWNER OF MAXI CAB NO.KA-24/A-1255).
2. SHRI. BASAVARAJ BHIMARAYAPPA NAIK,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MARIHAL, TAL: DIST: BELGAUM.
(OWNER OF MAXI CAB BEARING NO.KA-22/A-885)
2
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI.G.N.RAICHUR ADV. FOR R3)
(R1-NOTICE DISPENSED)
THIS MISCELLAN EOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FI LED
UNDER S ECTION 173( 1) OF MV ACT , 1988, AGAINST
THE JUD GMENT AND AWARD DATED 08-08-2005
PASSED IN MVC NO.1041/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE
II-ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUD GE (SR.DN) AND MEMBER
ADDITIONAL MACT, BELGA UM, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING
JUDGMENT
The claimant Prashant Nagangouda Patil in MVC No.1041/2002 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and Additional MACT, Belagavi has come up in this appeal through his next friend and natural guardian Sri. Naganagouda, who is his father. In this appeal, he is seeking for enhancement of compensation for the injuries suffered to his head in a road traffic accident dated 25.02.2002.
3
2. Admittedly the claim petition filed by him through his father as his natural guardian in the year 2002 came to be allowed by judgment dated 08.08.2005, wherein compensation is awarded to him in a sum of Rs.3,03,750/- payable with interest at 6% pa., from the date of petition till date of deposit of entire amount. Since he was a minor even as on the date of judgment passed in MVC 1041/2002, major portion of the amount was ordered to be deposited in his name till he attains majority.
3. It is seen in the year 2012 an application was filed in the disposed of matter to remove his father as his natural guardian and to permit him to withdraw the amount in deposit. The member of MACT secured his presence before the Court and on observation noted that the claimant was still disoriented and was not in a position to recognize people. The neurological injuries suffered to his head has reduced his ability to live normal life and that he is incapable of representing himself before the Court to seek release of the amount and there was also a passing 4 reference that the situation may continue for the rest of his life, which has prompted his father, an advocate by profession and as well as an agriculturist to approach this Court seeking enhancement of compensation at a belated stage with an application seeking condonation of delay of 2600 days.
4. Though in normal circumstances such applications cannot be entertained, considering the peculiar fact situation this Court did allow the said application and thereafter, summoned the lower Court records and reconsidered the same. On going through the records it is seen that the relevant evidence available is in the form of evidence of PW 3 - Dr. Suresh Mallappa Dugannai, who has given evidence with reference to head injuries suffered by claimant and also neurological deficiency which has reduced his existence to vegetative level.
5
5. On going through the evidence of said doctor, it is seen he has personally treated the patient for a long time to ascertain the actual nature of injury caused to his head. He has also referred the patient to e-eazy/ECG test at KLE hospital by an expert Dr.Makandar. The opinion of Dr.Makanadar and as well as the opinion of Dr. Suresh Mallappa Dugannai would indicate that the injuries suffered by claimant did not call for surgical intervention. At the same time he has not properly responded to medication which is provided. Though the parameters appears to be normal in all the tests, the disability to lead normal life, persists and as per the observations of the member of tribunal, the boy continues to be disoriented and appears to be underdeveloped in his mental faculty due to injuries suffered in the accident. Inasmuch as he has discontinued his studies in or around 2004 and 2005 and the possibility of going back to school and getting further minimum education is also not assured. Under the circumstances this Court feel on humanitarian grounds his claim for enhancement calls for reconsideration. 6
7. In that view of the matter keeping the medical evidence produced by P.W.3 Suresh Dr.Mallappa Dugannai and also unmarked document of Dr.Makanadar which is looked into, this Court feel that the whole body disability of claimant which is taken at 35% by the Court below is required to be increased to 70% and compensation is required to be calculated. If that is done keeping the notional income as it stood on that day, he is entitled to additional compensation under the said head in a sum of Rs.78,750/-.
8. While doing so, this court will have to reconsider the compensation awarded under the head pain and suffering. The pain and suffering of the claimant may be endless and will continue as long as he is alive. In that view of the matter the compensation awarded in a sum of Rs.50,000/- is required to be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- by awarding additional compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
9. Besides these two, the compensation awarded towards attendant charges and conveyance charges which 7 is at Rs.15,000/- is required to be increased to Rs.50,000/- for the reason that this boy will have to be under constant observation by one or the other member of family or to employ a male nurse for his attendance. Therefore, another sum of Rs.35,000/- is added to attendant charges which is already awarded at Rs.15,000/-
10. With this the claimant is entitled to enhanced in a sum of Rs.1,63,750/- over and above the sum of Rs.3,03,750/- awarded by the tribunal. With this, the total compensation would become Rs.4,67,500/- and the respondent insurer to deposit enhanced compensation of Rs.1,63,750/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till date of deposit of entire amount.
11. In the peculiar circumstances, this Court would like to deviate from set path of awarding 6% pa., interest and award the same at 9% p.a., for the simple reason that for no fault, the boy has lost interest for 2628 days. Therefore, the interest which is awarded on the additional 8 compensation will be at 9% p.a., from date of petition till date of deposit except for 2600 days.
Sd/-
JUDGE RHR/-