- 1 - MFA No.1790 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1790/2014(MV-I) BETWEEN: SURESHA, S/O DASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDENT AT SHANKARANAHALLY, SHANKARANAHALLY POST, KATTAYA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573 201, HASSAN DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHETHAN .B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M.P. MAHESH, MAJOR, RESIDENT AT: 14, 10TH MAIN, A.D. HALLY, BASAVESHWARA NAGARA, BENGALURU-560 079. 2. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.109, SSI AREA, RAJAJINAGAR, 5TH BLOCK, DASASHRAMA, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, V/O DTD:28.05.2024 NOTICE TO R1 IS H/S) - 2 - MFA No.1790 of 2014 THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16.11.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.903/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 29.01.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 16.11.2013 passed in MVC No.903/2012 on the file of the ADDL. Senior Civil Judge & ADDL. MACT, Hassan, for enhancing the compensation. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2. In spite of the service of notice, respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. - 3 - MFA No.1790 of 2014 3. The petitioner met with an accident on 30.05.2012 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, the tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.31,000/- with interest rate of 6% p.a. from date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by claimant for enhancement of the compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the claimant mainly contended that the Tribunal assessed the income of the appellant on lower side and also amount granted under other head are meager and thus requested for enhancement of the compensation. 5. Learned counsel for respondent argued that as per the MLC extract at Ex.P9 it is mentioned as history of road traffic accident happened around 08.00 p.m., near Shankararanahally-two wheeler X two wheeler and the injuries sustained by the petitioner are (1) Abrasion over forehead, (2) Abrasion over nose, (3) Abrasion over the - 4 - MFA No.1790 of 2014 upper lip and (4) Abrasion over the right leg, is in a different ink and different handwritings. But in the petition, petitioner stated that while he was travelling on Hero Honda Motorbike bearing Reg.No.KA-13-X-9601, one Tata Indica car bearing Reg.No. No.KA-4-B-3514 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to him and thus subsequently they have implicated the four wheeler to claim compensation wrongfully and thus they are not liable to pay the compensation but the tribunal erred in fixing the liability against them. The said issue was raised before the Tribunal. It was observed by the tribunal that in Ex.P9 there was such endorsement, but on perusal of the writings, it is clear that two wheeler X two wheeler is in a different ink and different handwriting with that of the below sentence. The said sentence is not explained either by the petitioner or by the respondents. Though Insurance Company stated that car was implicated. They have not adduced any independent evidence to dispute the case of the petitioner. - 5 - MFA No.1790 of 2014 6. Further, the petitioner produced Ex.P5 IMV/report and it shows that damages are caused to both the vehicles. The front wheel and steering handle of the bike are completely damaged and front side right door of the Tata Indica car was also damaged. If at all the two vehicles are not involved in accident, there will not be any damage to the car. Therefore, merely based on the entry in the MLC register extract, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that there is no involvement of Tata Indica car. Admittedly, after the investigation, charge sheet is filed against the driver of the offending vehicle car. There was suggestion to PW1, that accident was only between two wheeler and two wheeler and he sustained injuries by self- fall from the bike, but he denied the same. PW1 stated that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bike bearing Reg.No.KA-13-X-9601. Therefore, in view of admission of the PW1 and also in view of charge sheet filed against the car driver, this Court finds that there is negligence on the part of both the drivers i.e. driver of the motorbike and also driver of the - 6 - MFA No.1790 of 2014 car. The petitioner produced the copy of the insurance policy of the Tata Indica car, on perusal of the same it shows it is a passenger carrying commercial vehicle and liability only policy. But the driver of the Tata Indica car has no driving license. The petitioner also produced the driving license of the car, but it is not a valid and effective driving license to drive Passenger Carry Commercial Vehicle. This clearly shows that the driver of the car was not holding valid and effective driving license and hence it was held that respondent No.2 is not liable to pay respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay the compensation. The injured herein filed claim petition only against the owner and insurer of the Tata Indica car. But the owner and insurer of the Hero Honda motorbike are not impleaded as parties. This court finds it reasonable to assess the contributorty negligence of the petitioner as 40% and that of the driver of the car as 60%. The driver of the car has no valid driving license. As per the citation in case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental insurance company - 7 - MFA No.1790 of 2014 limited reported in Air 2017 SC 3368 finds it reasonable to invoke the pay and recovery order against the insurance company. 7. The petitioner sustained the following injuries as per Ex.P7, “1. Abrasion over forehead. 2. Abrasion over nose. 3. Abrasion over upper lip. 4. Subconjunctival haemorrhage with periorbital swelling Lt. Eye. 5. Tooth mobility.” out of which, injury Nos.1 to 3 are simple in nature and injury Nos.4 and 5 are grevious. Petitioner has not examined the doctor. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization, this court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.15,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.15,000/- for transportation extra nourishment and attendant charges. This court also finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses, though - 8 - MFA No.1790 of 2014 petitioner has not filed any medical record. Ex.P15 was produced for repair of vehicle for an amount of Rs.14,914/- but the Tribunal held that the petitioner has not claimed any compensation for damages to the vehicle and accordingly rejected the said amount. However, as per Ex.P15, this court finds it reasonable to grant Rs.14,914/- towards damages of the vehicle. 8. Thus in all, components awarded by this court are as below, Sl.Nos. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 Pain and suffering 50,000 2 Loss of amenities 15,000 3 Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. 15,000 4 Future medical expenses 10,000 6 Towards vehicle repair 14,914 Total 1,04,914 - 9 - MFA No.1790 of 2014 Hence, the compensation granted by Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.31,000/- to Rs.1,04,914/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 9. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 16.11.2013 passed in MVC No.903/2012 on the file of the ADDL. Senior Civil Judge & ADDL. MACT, Hassan, is modified. iii. The claimant is entitled for 60% of the total sum of Rs.1,04,914/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.31,000/- granted by the tribunal. iv. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company has already deposited the awarded amount - 10 - MFA No.1790 of 2014 before the tribunal. It is to be verified whether the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is deposited 60% of the compensation of Rs.1,04,914/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order. v. On such deposit, petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same if any excess amount is there respondent No.2/Insurance Company is entitled for refund. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV CT:NR