Allowed

Kum Maitri v. Vinod S Gadekar

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2021MFA/5658/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award was allowed to enhance compensation to Rs. 3,75,000 for a minor girl with 17% whole body disability. The Tribunal fastened 80% liability on the car owner and 20% on the bus owner, a ratio agreed to by the insurance company and BMC.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,75,000 with 6% interest payable by the car owner's insurer and BMC in an 80:20 ratio.

Kum Maitri Vs Vinod S Gadekar — Medical Negligence | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶4

MFA NO.5658 OF 2014 (MV)

¶5

BETWEEN :

¶6

KUM. MAITRI D/O PANCHAKSHARI AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS SINCE MINOR, REP. BY HER FATHER PANCHAKSHARI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O NO.128, 4^TH CROSS SANJAY NAGAR MARATHAHALLI BANGALORE – 560 037

¶7

… APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI.BASAVANNA K. M., ADV. FOR SRI. M. V. HIREMATH, ADV.)

¶9

AND :

¶10

VINOD S. GADEKAR S/O SURESH GADEKAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS NO.103, LA PARADISE PUTTAPPA LAYOUT NEW THIPPASANDRA BANGALORE – 560 075

¶11

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR A1 TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

¶12

¶13

PENINSULA CORPORATE PARK NICHOLAS PIRAMAL TOWER 9^TH FLOOR, GANPATRO KADAM MAR LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI – 400 013

¶14

C. K. MANJU S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS DRIVER, TOKEN NO.D-13100 BMTC BUS BEARING REGISTRATION No.KA-01-F-9529 WORKING AT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (BMTC) 25^TH DEPOT, HSR LAYOUT BANGALORE – 560 034

¶15

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (BMTC), DOUBLE ROAD BANGALORE – 560 027

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADV. FOR R2; SMT. H. R. RENUKA, ADV. FOR R4;

¶18

NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.01.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.603/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 04.01.2014 passed in MVC No.603/2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes at Bengaluru (SCCH-15), (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the petitioner therein has preferred this appeal.

¶24

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶25

referred to herein as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶26

The case of the petitioner is that on

¶27

21.09.2012 at about 8.20 a.m., she was traveling as a pillion rider on the motor bike bearing No.KA-03-HL3840. When she reached the junction near Tulasi Talkies on Varthur main road, Bengaluru an accident took place between the motor bike and a Car bearing Reg.No.KA-03-MH-9908 being driven by its owner respondent No.1 and the BMTC Bus bearing

¶28

¶29

Reg.No.KA-01-F-9529 belonging to respondent No.4 and driven by respondent No.3. Due to the said accident, the petitioner aged about 12 years sustained grievous injuries and suffered whole body disability of 17%. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending Car belonging to respondent No.1 and the BMTC Bus belonging to respondent No.4. Hence, petitioner preferred MVC No.603/2013 and claimed a compensation of Rs.18,10,000/-.

¶30

After service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 3 were placed exparte. Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company with whom the offending Car is duly insured. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 have contested the case.

¶31

To prove her case, the petitioner has got

¶32

examined three witnesses and got marked Ex.P.1 to

¶33

¶34

P.22. Respondents have not examined any witnesses

¶35

nor got marked any documents.

¶36

Based on the pleadings and evidence let in, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,85,000/- towards the injuries sustained by the petitioner by fastening 80% liability on the driver of the Car and 20% liability on the owner of BMTC Bus. Not satisfied by the same, the petitioner therein has preferred this appeal.

¶37

The factum of accident, the offending Car being duly registered with the respondent No.2 – Insurance Company and the contributory negligence attributed as against the driver of offending Car and Bus is not in dispute. The only question that arises for consideration in this case is quantum of compensation.

¶38

¶39

The petitioner was aged about 12 years at

¶40

the time of the accident and has suffered total bodily disability at 17%. The said fact is also not in dispute. The petitioner relies upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun vs.

¶41

Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited and Another reported in AIR 2014 SC 736 and submits that the total bodily disability being 17%, the petitioner is entitled to compensation as determined in Master Mallikarjun’s case supra. Based on the aforementioned decision of

¶42

the Apex Court, I deem it appropriate to award the following compensation to the appellant:

¶43

HEAD	COMPENSATION AMOUNT
Pain and suffering already
undergone and to be suffered	Rs. 3,00,000/-
in future, mental and physical
shock, hardship,
inconvenience, and
discomforts, etc., and loss of amenities in life on account of
permanent disability.

¶44

¶45

Discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings to the parents during the period of
hospitalization.	Rs. 25,000/-
Medical and incidental expenses during the period of
hospitalization	Rs. 25,000/-
Future medical expenses	Rs. 25,000/-
TOTAL:-	Rs.3,75,000/-

¶46

The learned counsel representing respondent No.2 – Insurance Company and respondent No.4 –

¶47

BMTC fairly concedes to the same. Further, they are also agreeable for apportionment of liability in the ratio of 80:20 between respondent No.2 – Insurance Company and respondent No.4 – BMTC. Accordingly, the following:-

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,75,000/- as against Rs.2,85,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶50

¶51

iii) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest of 6% p.a. payable from the date of claim petition till realization.

¶52

iv) The enhanced compensation is payable by both respondent Nos.2 and 4 in the ratio 80:20. v) Respondent Nos.2 and 4 shall deposit enhanced compensation amount with due interest within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶53

vi) The enhanced compensation shall be disbursed as per the terms prescribed by the Tribunal.

¶54

vii) No order as to costs.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

MH/-

Kum Maitri v. Vinod S Gadekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kum Maitri v. Vinod S Gadekar

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

Sri Muddappa Vs Sri Gangadharaiah S. G.

Master Sunil Vs the Managing Director

Sri Hanumanthappa H Siddlingappanavar Vs Smt. Leelavathi P Mahale

Icici Lombard General Insurance Vs Smt Minati Majhi W/O Late Suresh Majhi

Smt Minati Majhi Vs Smt Kamalkeshwari

Sharanesh M @ Charanesh M Vs M/S Reliance General Insurace Co. Ltd.