Allowed

Umesh Kalekhan Jadhav and Anr. v. Chandrakant Nagoji Tryambake and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Apr 2024FA/621/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It held that the statutory compensation for a minor dead victim (1 year 6 months) should be Rs. 5,00,000 with interest, enhancing the Tribunal's award of Rs. 50,000 based on the view that no-fault liability compensation must be enhanced for minors.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation to Rs. 5,00,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.

Umesh Kalekhan Jadhav and Anr. Vs Chandrakant Nagoji… — Medical Negligence | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

226-A- FA-621-2007.doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO. 621 OF 2007

¶6

1 Umesh Kalekhan Jadhav

¶7

Age : 34 years, Occ : Labourer

¶8

2 Sou. Babita Umesh Jadhav

¶9

Age : 30 years, Occ. Household

¶10

No. 1 and 2 R/o. Tembalai Naka, Railway Gate,
Zopadpatti, Kolhapur, Now R/o. Premnagar

¶11

Zopadpatti, Miraj

¶12

… Appellants

¶13

 Versus

¶14

1 Chandrakant Nagoji Trymbake
Age : 40 years, Occ : Service-Driver
R/o. Kasarwadi, Pune, Dist. Pune

¶15

2 Nandakishor Ramchandra Khandare

¶16

Age: Major, Occ : Vehicle Owner and a Trader
R/o. Bhosale Pagare Tower,Preetam Bldg.,
Flat No. 17, Dapodi, Dist. Pune-12.

¶17

3 National Insurance Company Ltd.
Regional Office, 1248-A, Shivajinagar,

¶18

Deccan Gymkhana, Pune-4.… Respondents

¶19

Ms. Pratiksha C. Keni i/b. S. D. Patil, Advocate for the Appellants.
Ms. Poonam Mital, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶20

 CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
 DATE : 4th APRIL, 2024

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶22

1. By this appeal appellants/claimants are seeking enhancement

¶23

of compensation.

¶24

2.It is contention of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants

¶25

that at the time of accident the deceased was 1½ year old. She died due

¶26

This Judgment is corrected / modified as per speaking to minutes of order dated 29.04.2024. 1/3

¶27

226-A- FA-621-2007.doc

¶28

S.S.Kilaje

¶29

to accident but the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/-
without interest it is erroneous. Learned counsel relied on Meena Devi V/s.

¶30

Nanu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and Ors. arising out of Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No.5345 of 2019.

¶31

3.Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company
submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the aspects while passing
Judgment and Order, hence no interference is required in it. Learned
counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has passed pay and recovery
order which is proper as there was breach of terms and conditions of
insurance policy.

¶32

4.I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused the Judgment
and Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangli (for short
“the Tribunal”). Admittedly, due to accident the child of claimant aged
1½ year is died. While awarding compensation the Tribunal has observed
that the child was 1½ year, the compensation paid under no fault liability
is sufficient to discharge the liability, therefore, the Tribunal has awarded
the amount of Rs.50,000/- without interest as compensation. I am unable
to understand the observations of the Tribunal for not awarding the
compensation. As per view of Hon’ble Apex Court in Meena Devi (supra)
claimants are entitled for Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation amount.

¶33

5. In view of above, I pass following order.

¶34

This Judgment is corrected / modified as per speaking to minutes of order dated 29.04.2024. 2/3

¶35

226-A- FA-621-2007.doc

¶36

S.S.Kilaje

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) The Appeal is allowed.

¶39

(ii) Claimants are entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- @7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing claim petition till realisation of amount.

¶40

(iii)The respondent No.3/Insurance company shall deposit
the enhanced amount along with accrued interest
thereon before the Tribunal within six weeks after
receipt of the order.

¶41

(iv) The claimants are permitted to withdraw the deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon.

¶42

(v) The respondent No.3/Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the amount from owner of the offending vehicle as directed by the Tribunal.

¶43

(vi) Appellants/claimants shall pay deficit court fees on the enhanced amount.

¶44

(vii) Pending applications, if any, also disposed of.

¶45

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶46

This Judgment is corrected / modified as per speaking to minutes of order dated 29.04.2024. 3/3

¶47

Digitally signed by SONALI SONALI SATISH SATISH KILAJEDate: KILAJE 2024.04.3014:27:58 +0530

Umesh Kalekhan Jadhav and Anr. v. Chandrakant Nagoji Tryambake and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Kalekhan Jadhav and Anr. v. Chandrakant Nagoji Tryambake and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vilas Laxman Kapare Vs Hirabhai Motibhai Aal and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. the Manager Vs Mr. Keshav Rodya Shelake and Ors.

Kishor Pramod Sahe @ Kamal Kishore Sahu Vs the State of Maharashtra

The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr. Divisinal Controller, Palghar vs Smt. Veni Gopal Kom and Ors.

Mahesh M. Kakkad, Vs 1. Santosh Moteshwar Rakvi and Anr.

Aftab Shaikh Alam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.