- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2488 MFA No. 204095 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.204095/2023 (MV-I) BETWEEN: KAMALABAI W/O NARSINGH, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: SELF-EMPLOYED, R/O H.NO. 13-2-147, OPPOSITE AMBEDKAR COLLEGE, LADGERI, BIDAR-584 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MOSHE S/O JOHNSON, AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O NAGOOR (M), TALUKA AURAD, DIST: BIDAR-584 101. 2. M/S. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO. G1, G2, G12 AND G13, ASIAN ARCADE, NEAR ANAND HOTEL, KALABURAGI-585 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE, FOR R2; R1-V/O DTD. 05.01.2024 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by SUMITRA SHERIGAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2488 MFA No. 204095 of 2023 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.11.2022 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BIDAR, IN MVC NO.297/2020. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI) 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 15.11.2022 passed in MVC No.297/2020 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bidar, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. 2. The factual matrix of the case is as below: a) On 29.12.2019 when the petitioner was traveling in the Cruiser jeep from Santhpur to Bidar at about 1.30 p.m., the said jeep turned turtle due to negligent driving of the driver of the same. The - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2488 MFA No. 204095 of 2023 petitioner alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep which was owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 and as such, she is entitled for compensation from them. The petitioner was shifted to the hospital, where she took treatment for 12 days initially and thereafter again treated as inpatient for about 3 days and as such, she sought adequate compensation. b) On being served with the notice, respondent No.1 did not appear and respondent No.2 – Insurance Company appeared and filed written statement to the petition contending that respondent No.1 had violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the vehicle carried the passengers in excess of its capacity and therefore, the liability has to be fastened upon respondent No.1. Inter alia, the quantum of the compensation claimed was also denied by respondent No.2. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2488 MFA No. 204095 of 2023 c) Based on the contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked in evidence in support of the petition. No oral or documentary evidence is led on behalf of the respondents. d) After hearing the parties, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,04,643/- as compensation. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner would submit that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,04,643/- under the head ‘medical expenses’ only. The Tribunal failed to award any compensation towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities in life, loss of income during laid up period and towards nourishment, conveyance and attendant’s charges during treatment. Therefore, he submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and insufficient. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2488 MFA No. 204095 of 2023 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company submits that the compensation under the heads pain and suffering, loss of amenities in life and such other admissible heads may be awarded to the petitioner excluding medical expenses. He submits that there being no disability, proper compensation may be awarded. 5. Having heard the counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company, this Court has perused the materials available on record. 6. A careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award would show that the Tribunal has disposed of the petition without application of mind. The Wound Certificate at Ex.P3 and the Discharge Summery at Ex.P7 would show that the petitioner had sustained contused compression over the left hand and contused wound on the back of the abdomen at lumbar region. She was subjected to the various diagnostic procedures and it was found that she had - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2488 MFA No. 204095 of 2023 suffered fracture of the 2nd rib. Ex.P7 which comprises of two Discharge Summaries shows that petitioner was inpatient from 29.12.2019 to 09.01.2020 and thereafter from 23.01.2020 to 26.01.2020. She underwent various procedures during the said period and she was in ICU. The other medical records in the form of Bills and Prescriptions would also show that she was inpatient for the above said period. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal no where considered these documents, which were available before it and in hurried manner it awarded compensation only in respect of medical expenses and totally over-looked the evidence on record. This lackluster attitude of the Tribunal cannot be approved by this Court. Hence, this Court expresses its disapproval to the manner in which the case was treated by the Tribunal. 7. There cannot be any doubt that the petitioner had spent a sum of Rs.1,04,643/- for her treatment. Nevertheless, she is entitled for compensation under the heads of pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, loss of income during laid up period and conveyance, attendant’s - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2488 MFA No. 204095 of 2023 and nourishing food charges during treatment period. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities in life, a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards conveyance, attendant’s charges and nourishment and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period for two months. In all, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.75,000/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. In the result, the petition deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified. iii) The appellant-petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.75,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2488 MFA No. 204095 of 2023 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit before the Tribunal. iv) The respondent No.2 – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest within a period of 06 weeks from the date of this judgment. v) The Tribunal Records to be sent back to the Tribunal immediately along with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.M. JOSHI) JUDGE SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67 CT: AK