- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31303 MFA No. 8621 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8621 OF 2012 (MV) BETWEEN: Y V SWETHA D/O G V VENKATESHAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCU-LEGAL ADVISOR, RES: YALADIHALLI, HEBBUR HOBLI TUMKUR DISTRICT. &APPELLANT (BY SMT. M C UMADEVAMMA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VINAY BHOSALE S/O S M BHOSALE AGE-MAJOR, RES: 232, RATHADA BEEDI, OPP: MARAMMA TEMPLE, BUILDING, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, BANGLAORE 2. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD DO-25, SHANKARANARAYA BUILDING M G ROAD, BANGALORE-1 &RESPONDENTS (BY MS. NISHA REBELLO, ADV. FOR SRI. A M VENKATESH ADV. FOR R2, V/O DTD. 21.11.2013 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31303 MFA No. 8621 of 2012 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.06.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1261/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT-10, TUMKUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. By consent of both parties, though the matter is listed for admission, the same is taken for final disposal. 2. The case of the appellant is that she was working as an Assistant, who was the legal adviser of S.B.I. at Tumkur and on 19.09.2009, while she was proceeding on the road, a motorcycle bearing No.KA-51-S- 9997 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to her, resulting in she sustaining dislocation ankle with chip fracture and fracture of posterior melleolous, tibia lower end. She was admitted to the hospital, underwent surgery, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31303 MFA No. 8621 of 2012 and she was inpatient for five days. She contended that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2. Contending that she was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, she claimed compensation before the Tribunal. 3. On service of notice, respondent No.2 did not appear and was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.1, the owner of the vehicle, appeared and contended that he had insured the vehicle with respondent No.2 and the policy being in force, any liability has to be fastened upon the respondent. It was contended that the rider had a valid driving license and denied that there was any such actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. 4. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues, the petitioner was examined as PW.1, and got marked the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31303 MFA No. 8621 of 2012 documents as Exs.P1 to P8. No evidence was lead on behalf of the respondents. 5. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.16,500/- as compensation. The said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are assailed before this Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal failed to assess the compensation under different heads and the compensation is not fixed for injuries suffered by the petitioner. It was contended that the petitioner was working and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- p.m. and due to accidental injuries, she could not earn her livelihood, which has resulted monetary loss to her. Therefore, she seeks indulgence from this Court for reassessment of the compensation. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company defended the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31303 MFA No. 8621 of 2012 8. On a careful perusal of the records, it shows that the petitioner was aged about 25 years at the time of the accident and the wound certificate, which is at Ex.P4 would indicate that there is a posterior medial dislocation of ankle with chip fracture and posterior melleolous, tibia lower end. This document coupled with Ex.P5 shows that she was an inpatient for five days. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner and the period of inpatient treatment, it is evident that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount to the petitioner. In the considered view of this Court, it would be just and proper to award a compensation a sum of Rs.35,000/- under the head 8pain and suffering9, a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head 8loss of income during laid up period9, a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head 8attendant charges, traveling expenses, food and nourishment etc.,9, a sum of Rs.88,000/- under the head of 8medical expenses9 as per the bills produced by the petitioner, a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the head of 8loss of amenities in life9. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31303 MFA No. 8621 of 2012 9. In light of the above, the petitioner is entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,78,000/-. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed, and the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,61,500/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii. The petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,61,500/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the disposal before the Tribunal. iii. Other aspects ordered by the Tribunal remain unaltered. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SSB