Facts
On 6 August 2017, the minor claimant, then aged eight, was struck by an Indigo car while walking with his mother beside the Yaragatti–Bagalkot Road.
Source reference: p. 2–3, para. 3He sustained serious injuries, including head injuries, and received inpatient treatment and surgery at several hospitals.
Source reference: p. 2–3, para. 3The Tribunal awarded him ₹11,11,938 with interest at 7% per annum, including ₹6,00,000 for functional/mental disability, ₹80,000 for pain and suffering, ₹30,000 for loss of amenities, ₹40,000 for conveyance and attendant charges, and ₹3,61,938 for medical expenses.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 9The insurer appealed, challenging the 100% disability assessment and the awards for pain and suffering and loss of amenities.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 11Issues
1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required interference, including whether its assessment of disability and certain heads of compensation was justified.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 132. What order should follow from the Court’s determination on compensation.
Source reference: p. 7, paras. 13–14Law Applied
The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Source reference: p. 2In assessing compensation for the minor claimant’s disability, the Court relied on *Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another*, (2013) 4 ACJ 2445, which it applied as the basis for the Tribunal’s ₹6,00,000 award for functional/mental disability.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 16The Court also applied the principle that compensation should not be duplicated under overlapping heads: in this case, it held that separate awards for pain and suffering and loss of amenities did not arise alongside the ₹6,00,000 disability award.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 16Reasoning
The Court accepted the Tribunal’s 100% disability assessment in light of the seriousness of the child’s injuries and the evidence of resulting mental and cognitive impairment; it therefore declined to reduce the ₹6,00,000 disability award.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 16However, it removed the awards for pain and suffering and loss of amenities as duplicative of the disability compensation.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 16It increased conveyance and attendant charges from ₹40,000 to ₹70,000, having regard to the child’s age and the care his parents provided during treatment and recovery.
Source reference: p. 10, para. 17It also awarded ₹50,000 for future medical expenses and ₹25,000 for food, diet and nutrition, while leaving the medical-expense award of ₹3,61,938 undisturbed.
Source reference: pp. 10–11, paras. 18–21The resulting total was ₹11,06,938.
Source reference: p. 11, para. 21Holding
The Court partly allowed the insurer’s appeal and modified the Tribunal’s award, reducing compensation from ₹11,11,938 to ₹11,06,938, with interest at 7% per annum.
The insurer was directed to deposit the compensation with accrued interest within eight weeks; any amount already deposited was to be transmitted to the Tribunal, and disbursement was to follow the Tribunal’s order.
Source reference: p. 13, order, clauses (iv)–(vii)Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Motor Vehicles Act, 19881
Original Court PDF
DIVISIONAL MANAGERvsKUMAR LAKKAPPA S/O. VITTAL YAKKANNAVAR,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
