Kumari Chaithra Vs Shayabanu

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.10.2014 PASSED IN MVC.NO.882/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC, MACT, ARSIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶32

IN MFA NO. 8601/2016

¶33

BETWEEN:

¶34

SMT. SUSHEELA, W/O LATE C.N.MADHU, NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT CHAGACHAGERE, GANDASI-HOBLI, ARSIKERE-TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶35

MASTER.BANU PRAKASH, S/O LATE C.N.MADHU, NOW AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, R/AT CHAGACHAGERE, GANDASI-HOBLI, ARSIKERE-TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶36

(SINCE MINOR HE REP BY MOTHER SUSHEELA - APPELLANT NO.1)

¶37

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38854 MFA No. 8599 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 8601 of 2016 MFA No. 8603 of 2016

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

SRI NANJUNDEGOWDA,

¶40

NOW AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT CHAGACHAGERE, GANDASI-HOBLI, ARSIKERE-TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶41

SMT RAJAMMA, W/O NANJUNDEGOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT CHAGACHAGERE, GANDASI-HOBLI, ARSIKERE-TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 563 872.

¶42

...APPELLANTS

¶43

(BY SRI. KAMALA D K., ADVOCATE)

¶44

AND:

¶45

SHYABANU, S/O DASTAGIR, NOW AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT VENKATESHWARA NAGAR, BEHIND MAHALAKSHMI SAWMILL, KADUR TOWN, CHICKAMANGALUR.

¶46

MEERA, S/O DASTAGIR, NOW AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT VENKATESHWARA NAGAR, BEHIND MAHALAKSHMI SAWMILL, KADUR TOWN, CHICKAMANGALURU DISTRICT.

¶47

M/S UNITED INDIA INS CO LTD., REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, P.B.NO.114, K.M.ROAD, CHICKMAGALUR.

¶48

...RESPONDENTS

¶49

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38854 MFA No. 8599 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 8601 of 2016 MFA No. 8603 of 2016

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

((BY SRI. L SREEKANTARAO., ADVOCATE FOR R3; V/O DATED 22.09.2022, NOTICE TO R2 IS H/S; V/O DATED 04.08.2025 R1 STANDS ABATED)

¶52

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.10.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.261/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC, MACT, ARSIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶53

IN MFA NO. 8603/2016

¶54

BETWEEN:

¶55

KUMARI. C.E. SHALINI, S/O ESHWARAPPA C.D, NOW AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, RESIDING AT: CHAGACHAGERE, GANDASI-HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. (SINCE MINOR SHE IS REP BY HER FATHER SRI.ESHWARAPPA C.D)

¶56

...APPELLANT

¶57

(BY SRI. KAMALA D K., ADVOCATE)

¶58

AND:

¶59

SHYABANU, S/O DASTAGIR, NOW AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT VENKATESHWARA NAGAR, BEHIND MAHALAKSHMI SAWMILL, KADUR TOWN, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶60

MEERA, S/O DASTAGIR, NOW AGED ABOTU 47 YEARS,

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:38854 MFA No. 8599 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 8601 of 2016 MFA No. 8603 of 2016

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

5 -

¶64

R/AT VENKATESHWARA NAGAR, BEHIND MAHALAKSHMI SAWMILL, KADUR TOWN, CHICKMANGALUR DISTRICT.

¶65

M/S UNITED INDIA INS CO LTD, REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, P B NO.114, K M ROAD, CHICKMAGALUR.

¶66

...RESPONDENTS

¶67

(BY SRI. B.A.RAMAKRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R3; V/O DATED 22.09.2022, NOTICE TO R2 IS H/S; V/O DATED 04.08.2025 R1 STANDS ABATED)

¶68

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.10.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.305/12 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, ARSIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶69

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶70

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶71

There is common order before the Tribunal in MVC.Nos.261/2012, 305/2012, 790/2012, 882/2012, 540/2012, 541/2012, 542/2012 and the judgment dated 17.10.2014. All these petitions met with same accident on 11.06.2011. Hence, common order is passed in these appeals.

¶72

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:38854 MFA No. 8599 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 8601 of 2016 MFA No. 8603 of 2016

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 17.10.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.882/2012, by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Arsikere for enhancing the compensation.

¶75

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.3 - Insurance Company. Notice to respondent No.2 is held sufficient vide order dated 22.09.2022. Notice to respondent No.1 stands abated vide order dated 04.08.2025.

¶76

The Tribunal considered that Kum.Chaithra is a minor petitioner aged 16 years when she met with an accident; as such she was represented by her father. He stated that he spent Rs.1,00,000/- for medical expenses. She was admitted in the hospital on 11.06.2011. She sustained tenderness over nose and multiple abrasions over foot. X-ray was taken and she has been discharged on the next day. The Tribunal considering the said injuries

¶77

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:38854 MFA No. 8599 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 8601 of 2016 MFA No. 8603 of 2016

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

granted an amount of Rs.12,000/-. Aggrieved by the side of order, this appeal is preferred and contended that the meager amounts are granted under the head pain and suffering, loss of amenities and medical bills. She sustained grievous injuries and the doctor assessed the disability as 18% to 20%. Therefore, requested for enhancement of compensation and also requested for granting of compensation under the head conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges.

¶80

Considering the nature of injuries, the age of the petitioner and period of hospitalization, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.5,000/- for injuries, Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs.5,000/- for transportation and extra nourishment. Though, father of the petitioner stated that he spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. He does not file any documents to prove the medical expenses. Considering the nature of injuries, this court

¶81

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:38854 MFA No. 8599 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 8601 of 2016 MFA No. 8603 of 2016

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.3,000/- for medical expenses.

¶84

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits

¶85

that the Tribunal fixed up the contributory negligence on part of respondent Nos.2 and 3 as 50% by each of them. Therefore, he relied on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors (dated 07.05.2015, in Civil Appeal No.4244/2015) in which it was held that claimant can recover the entire compensation from one of the joint tort feasor, when the accident is caused by composite negligence of drivers of both the vehicles. Considering the said judgment this Court finds it reasonable to direct respondent No.3 to deposit the entire compensation amount and to recover 50% of the same from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law.

¶86

Thus in all, components awarded by this Court

¶87

are as below:

¶88

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:38854 MFA No. 8599 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 8601 of 2016 MFA No. 8603 of 2016

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Injuries	5,000.00
Pain and suffering	5,000.00
Loss of amenities	5,000.00
Conveyance and extra	5,000.00
nourishment charges
medical expenses	3,000.00
Total	23,000.00

¶91

Thus, compensation is enhanced from

¶92

Rs.12,000/- to Rs.23,000/- with interest at the rate of

¶93

6% per annum.

¶94

In MFA No.8601/2016

¶95

This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 17.10.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.261/2012, by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Arsikere for enhancing the compensation.

¶96

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶97

the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.3 - Insurance Company. Notice to respondent No.2 is held

¶98

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:38854 MFA No. 8599 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 8601 of 2016 MFA No. 8603 of 2016

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

sufficient vide order dated 22.09.2022. Notice to respondent No.1 stands abated vide order dated 04.08.2025.

¶101

One Madhu, aged 30 years, met with an accident on 11.06.2011 and died. His wife and a minor son and his parents filed claim application in MVC.No.261/2012. They filed claim application for claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.9,63,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred and it is contended that deceased was working as a driver and earning Rs.50,000/- p.m., and also doing agricultural work. His income was wrongly taken as Rs.6,000/- p.m., therefore requested for enhancement of compensation.

¶102

Though it is stated that Madhu was earning Rs.50,000/- p.m. no evidence is adduced to prove his income, therefore as per the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, as he met with

¶103

11 -

¶104

NC: 2025:KHC:38854 MFA No. 8599 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 8601 of 2016 MFA No. 8603 of 2016

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

an accident on 11.06.2011, this court finds it reasonable to take his notional income as Rs.6,500/- p.m. and as he was aged 30 years, the multiplier is to be taken as '17' and '40%' is to be added towards future prospects and '1/4' is to be deducted towards personal expenses. The loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,500 + 40 % - ¼ x 12 x 17 = Rs.13,92,300/-. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by reiterating the comprehensive interpretation of 'consortium' given in the authority of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & others¹ , and in the authority between United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others² , fortified that the amounts for loss of consortium shall be awarded to the children who lose the care and protection of their parents as 'parental consortium' and to the parents as, 'filial consortium' for the loss of their grown-up children, to compensate their agony, love and affection, care and

¶107

1 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶108

2 (2020) 9 SCC 644

¶109

12 -

¶110

NC: 2025:KHC:38854 MFA No. 8599 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 8601 of 2016 MFA No. 8603 of 2016

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

companionship of deceased children. Apart from that petitioner No.1 is entitled for loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- , petitioner No.2 is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards parental consortium and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are also entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- to each of them as filial consortium come to Rs.80,000/-. Apart from that they are entitled for Rs.30,000/- under the conventional heads.

¶113

Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the Tribunal fixed up the contributory negligence on part of respondent Nos.2 and 3 as 50% by each of them. Therefore, he relied on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei vs. New India

¶114

Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors (dated 07.05.2015, in Civil Appeal No.4244/2015) in which it was held that claimant can recover the entire compensation from one of the joint tort feasor, when the accident is caused by composite negligence of drivers of both the vehicles. Considering the said judgment this Court finds it

¶115

NC: 2025:KHC:38854 MFA No. 8599 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 8601 of 2016 MFA No. 8603 of 2016

¶116

13 -

¶117

HC-KAR

¶118

reasonable to direct respondent No.3 deposit the entire compensation amount and to recover 50% of the same

¶119

from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law.

¶120

Thus in all, components awarded by this Court

¶121

are as below:

¶122

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	13,92,300.00
Loss of consortium	40,000.00
Parental consortium	40,000.00
Filial consortium	80,000.00
Conventional heads	30,000.00
Total	15,82,300.00

¶123

Thus, compensation is enhanced from

¶124

Rs.9,63,000/- to Rs.15,82,300/- with interest at the rate

¶125

of 6% per annum.

¶126

In MFA No.8603/2016

¶127

This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 17.10.2014 passed in

¶128

14 -

¶129

NC: 2025:KHC:38854 MFA No. 8599 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 8601 of 2016 MFA No. 8603 of 2016

¶130

HC-KAR

¶131

M.V.C.No.305/2012, by the learned Senior Civil Judge and

¶132

MACT, Arsikere for enhancing the compensation.

¶133

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.3 - Insurance Company. Notice to respondent No.2 is held sufficient vide order dated 22.09.2022. Notice to respondent No.1 stands abated vide order dated 04.08.2025.

¶134

A minor petitioner aged 8 years met with an accident, and the claim petition is filed by his father claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/but the Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Aggrieved by the said order this appeal is preferred and it is contended that the petitioner sustained 6 injuries, out of which 2 are fracture injuries. She was studying third standard, and she could not attend the classes, due to the injuries sustained by her. They also stated that the examined doctor as PW.2 assessed the

¶135

NC: 2025:KHC:38854 MFA No. 8599 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 8601 of 2016 MFA No. 8603 of 2016

¶136

15 -

¶137

HC-KAR

¶138

disability is 18%, but the tribunal did not consider the

¶139

same. It is further stated that they filed medical bills to an extent of Rs.70,000/- but the amount of Rs.63,000/- was

¶140

only granted and meager amount of Rs.10,000/- was granted for loss of amenities and Rs.5,000/- was granted under extra nourishment and also Rs.20,000/- for conveyance. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.

¶141

As per Ex.P.10 he sustained the following

¶142

injuries:

¶143

(1) Fracture of femur left (2) Fracture of femur right (3) Laceration on forearm (4) Abrasion on back (5) Abrasion on right knee (6) Abrasion on right ankle

¶144

Out of which 3 to 6 are simple injuries and injury

¶145

Nos.1 and 2 are grievous in nature. She was admitted in the hospital on 11.06.2011 and discharged on 22.06.2011.

¶146

Though, it is stated that the doctor assessed the disability. The evidence of the doctor is not filed before this court. Therefore, considering the injuries and the period of

¶147

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:38854 MFA No. 8599 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 8601 of 2016 MFA No. 8603 of 2016

¶148

HC-KAR

¶149

hospitalisation, this court finds it reasonable to grant an amount Rs.45,000/- for injuries and the amount granted by the Tribunal Rs.63,000/- for medical expenses needs

¶150

no interference. Considering the nature of injuries period of hospitalization and age of the petitioner, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.15,000/ - for transportation and extra nourishment.

¶151

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Tribunal fixed up the contributory negligence on part of respondent Nos.2 and 3 as 50% by each of them. Therefore, he relied on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei vs. New India

¶152

Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors (dated 07.05.2015, in Civil Appeal No.4244/2015) in which it was held that claimant can recover the entire compensation from one of the joint tort feasor, when the accident is caused by composite negligence of drivers of both the vehicles. Considering the said judgment this Court finds it

¶153

NC: 2025:KHC:38854 MFA No. 8599 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 8601 of 2016 MFA No. 8603 of 2016

¶154

17 -

¶155

HC-KAR

¶156

reasonable to direct respondent No.3 deposit the entire

¶157

compensation amount and to recover 50% of the same

¶158

from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law.

¶159

Thus in all, components awarded by this Court

¶160

are as below:

¶161

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Injuries	40,000.00
Medical Expenses	63,000.00
Pain and sufferings	20,000.00
Loss of amenities	20,000.00
Transportation and	15,000.00
extra nourishment
Total	1,63,000.00

¶162

Thus, compensation is enhanced from

¶163

Rs.1,40,000/- to Rs.1,63,000/- with interest at the rate

¶164

of 6% p.a.

¶165

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶166

ORDER

¶167

These appeals are hereby partly allowed.

¶168

18 -

¶169

NC: 2025:KHC:38854 MFA No. 8599 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 8601 of 2016 MFA No. 8603 of 2016

¶170

HC-KAR

¶171

In MFA No.8599/2016

¶172

i. The judgment and award dated 17.10.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.882/2012 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Arsikere is modified;

¶173

ii. The appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.23,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization as against Rs.12,000/-.

¶174

iii. Respondent No.3 is directed deposit the entire compensation amount within one month from the date of this order and is at liberty to recover the 50% of the same from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law.

¶175

iv. Petitioner aged 19 years as on the date of filing the appeal and she might have attained majority. Therefore, she is

¶176

NC: 2025:KHC:38854 MFA No. 8599 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 8601 of 2016 MFA No. 8603 of 2016

¶177

19 -

¶178

HC-KAR

¶179

permitted to withdraw the entire amount

¶180

along with interest accrued on it.

¶181

In MFA No.8601/2016

¶182

i. The judgment and award dated 17.10.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.261/2012 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Arsikere is modified;

¶183

ii. The appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,82,300/- along with interest at 6% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization as against Rs.9,63,000/-.

¶184

iii. Respondent No.3 is directed deposit the entire compensation amount within one month from the date of this order and is at liberty to recover the 50% of the same from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law.

¶185

20 - NC: 2025:KHC:38854 MFA No. 8599 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 8601 of 2016 MFA No. 8603 of 2016

¶186

HC-KAR

¶187

iv. Appellants are permitted to withdraw the

¶188

entire amount along with interest accrued

¶189

on the same.

¶190

In MFA No.8603/2016

¶191

i. The judgment and award dated 17.10.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.305/2012 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Arsikere is modified;

¶192

ii. The appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,63,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization as against Rs.1,40,000/-.

¶193

iii. Respondent No.3 is directed deposit the entire compensation amount within one month from the date of this order and is at

¶194

liberty to recover the 50% of the same from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law.

¶195

21 -

¶196

NC: 2025:KHC:38854 MFA No. 8599 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 8601 of 2016 MFA No. 8603 of 2016

¶197

HC-KAR

¶198

iv. Petitioner aged 12 years as on the date of filing the appeal and she might have attained majority. Therefore, she is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it.

¶199

v. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith, without any delay and

¶200

vi. Draw award accordingly.

¶201

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶202

KVR

¶203

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60

Kumari Chaithra v. Shayabanu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Chaithra v. Shayabanu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Dharmapal

Mr Lathesh Vs Mr Balakrishna

T G Vadiraj Vs the Commissioner

The Manager Vs Sri William Dayananda

Smt. Suma P Vs Mr. C.Raju Gowda

M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Mr Sonu Kumar Yadav