w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Master Vinay Bharadwaj, Rep. by his Father & Natural Guardian D.R. Shivakumar v/s M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93090TN1938GOI000108

Company & Directors' Information:- J B UNITED PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000MH2014PTC258844

Company & Directors' Information:- J B UNITED PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2014PTC258844

Company & Directors' Information:- DR I T M LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120CH1999PLC022651

Company & Directors' Information:- GUARDIAN INDIA PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U24231DL1985PTC022365

Company & Directors' Information:- MASTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51100DL2014PTC269835

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND M BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01403KA2012PTC062199

Company & Directors' Information:- GUARDIAN CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900PN2012PTC142856

Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED CORPORATION LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999TN1942PLC003159

    M.F.A. No. 6018 of 2012 (MV)

    Decided On, 27 August 2020

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS

    For the Appellant: T.N. Vishwanatha, Advocate. For the Respondents: A.M. Venkatesh, Advocate.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: This MFA is filed Under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated:6.9.2011 passed in MVC No.2284/2009 on the file of member, MACT, X Additional Judge, Bangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.)

Through Video Conference:

Judgment (Oral):

1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 06.09.2011 in MVC No.2284/2009 passed by the MACT at Bengaluru in MVC No.2284/2009.

2. The undisputed facts are that on 26.10.2008 at about 11.30 a.m. the petitioner who was aged about 8 years then, along with his parents and brother was standing on the footpath in Chickballapura Bus Stop to board a bus to Doddaballapur. At that time a canter goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-40-2009 came from Shidlaghatta circle and dashed against the petitioner. It is alleged that due to the reckless driving of the vehicle and impact of the collision, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries over his body. The petitioner was shifted to Government hospital in Chickballapura for first aid treatment and thereafter he was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital Bengaluru for further treatment. It was contended by the petitioner that a sum Rs.25,000/- was spent on the medical expenses, conveyance, nourishment, charges etc.

3. The Tribunal considering the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the canter goods vehicle, while on the other hand he was holding a driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle and therefore absolved the respondent - Insurance Company from liability. The appeal was disposed of while awarding compensation of Rs.16,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a,. from the date of petition till payment by respondent No.2 owner of the vehicle.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in so far as the question of liability of the insurance company, the question as to whether a person holding a driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle could be held to be holding a valid driving licence to drive a goods vehicle stands answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan /vs./ Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663.

5. Learned counsel Sri A.M.Venkatesh, appearing for the respondent No.1 - Insurance Company fairly submits that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court covers the case on hand on the question of liability of the Insurance Company and therefore the decision of the Tribunal that the respondent No.1 Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation, is set aside.

6. In so far as the prayer for enhancement of the compensation is concerned, this Court has noticed the type of injuries suffered by the petitioner, such as (1) Lacerated wound on the right frontal region. (2) Abrasion near the lateral cantus of eye right side (3)Abrasion over the left leg posterior aspect of 1 cm below the right ankle joint. This Court should also not lose sight of the fact that the Tribunal had passed the judgment in the month of September, 2011. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan was passed in the year 2017. This appeal itself was filed during June 2012. If this case was heard expeditiously, probably the fate fo the petitioner would have been different. Nevertheless, taking the over all situation into consideration this Court is of the considered opinion that the award granted by the Tribunal may be modified while granting compensation of Rs.30,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. To that extent the award passed by the Tribunal stands modified.

7. The 1st respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the ent

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ire compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. The Tribunal is also directed to release the entire amount along with the accrued interest to the petitioner having regard to the fact that the petitioner has since attained the age of majority. Ordered accordingly.
O R