- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30144 MFA No. 2910 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2910 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SMT. VIOLET VASANTHI @ VILOET, W/O A KRIHSNAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO. 210, 3RD B CROSS, DOMLUR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 071. …APPELLANT (BY SRI M R KUMARASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. PRASAD S, S/O LATE SHESHAGIRI RAO A, NO. 133, BIKASIPURA, PAL CHINNAPPA LAYOUT, ROOPA NAGARA, BANGALORE-560 061. 2. ICICI LOMBARD INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, PRESTIGE CORNICHE, 1ST FLOOR, 62/1, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.C SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 14.11.2017) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.8.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.2280/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30144 MFA No. 2910 of 2014 AND CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.2280/2011 by the learned Member, Principal MACT and Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, dated 17.8.2013, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal seeking enhancement. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that, on 01.02.2011 at 7.00 p.m., when the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on two wheeler near KPTCL Transformer, 1st Cross, Domluru Layout, Bangalore, Alto car bearing No. KA-51-Z-4576 came in a rash and negligent manner and while taking 'U' turn, dashed against the two wheeler, resulting in the petitioner falling - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30144 MFA No. 2910 of 2014 down and sustaining the fracture of the left clavicle, fracture of right second toe of the proximal phalanx and a minor spinal injury. The petitioner was immediately taken to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore, and there she underwent the ORIF for fracture of the clavicle. It was contended that the petitioner was aged 60 years at the time of the accident and was earning ₹ 8,000/- per month working in a private hotel as a Telephone Operator. Earlier she was an employee of the BESCOM. Therefore, it was contended that the petitioner is entitled for a compensation from the owner and insurer of the car. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have appeared before the Tribunal and filed their written statements. Though the petition was resisted by the Insurance Company contending that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant and imaginary, none of its contentions raised in the written statement were proved and as such, the Tribunal has fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company, which is not disputed in this appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30144 MFA No. 2910 of 2014 5. On the basis of the above contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed the appropriate issues. Petitioner was examined as PW1 and the Doctor who has treated the petitioner was examined as PW2 and Exhibits P1 to P14 were marked in evidence. On behalf of respondents, one witness has been examined as RW1 and Exhibits R2 to 4 were marked. 6. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, has awarded a compensation amount of ₹1,36,289/- under following heads: Injury, pain and suffering ₹ 30,000/- Loss of future earning ₹ 95,040/- Loss of earnings during the period of treatment ₹ 1,602/- Attendant expenses ₹ 600/- Medical expenses ₹ 7,047/- Travelling expenses ₹ 2,000/- Total ₹1,36,289/- 7. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30144 MFA No. 2910 of 2014 8. On issuance of notice, respondent No.2- Insurnace Company appeared through its counsel and notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant herein would submit that the compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering, loss of earning during the laid up period and medical expenses are not properly assessed by the Tribunal and that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards the future medical expenses. He also points out that the petitioner has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking to produce certain documents which would establish that the petitioner had to spend a sum of ₹52,345/- towards the further expenses of removal of the implants. It is also submitted that the compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life is also needs to be awarded to the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30144 MFA No. 2910 of 2014 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company contends that the compensations awarded by the Tribunal under the different heads are proper and correct and no indulgence is required. It is submitted that the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC is not sustainable in law. 11. On a careful perusal of the records, it is evident that the factum of the accident is not in dispute. The Insurance Company has also deposited the entire compensation amount as determined by the Tribunal under the impugned award. Therefore, the only question is, whether the compensation awarded is adequate or not and whether the additional evidence need to be considered? 12. It is pertinent to note that, the records of the Tribunal clearly indicate that the fracture of the clavicle was treated by ORIF and implants were inserted. This may be found from the testimony of PW2 also. Therefore, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30144 MFA No. 2910 of 2014 proceedings under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, being summary in nature, the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC deserves to be allowed. 13. On a careful consideration of the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, it would be just and proper to award a sum of ₹45,000/- under the Head of pain and suffering instead of ₹30,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Similarly, the loss of earnings during the period of treatment awarded by the Tribunal at ₹1,602/- being on the lower side, the same is enhanced to ₹16,000/- by taking the income of the petitioner at ₹8,000/- per month. 14. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of ₹7,047/- towards medical expenses and obviously, the said claim is made after deducting the other reimbursement which the petitioner might have got, as she was working at BESCOM earlier. In the light of the additional evidence produced by the petitioner, it would be just and proper to award a sum of ₹47,000/- after a careful scrutiny of the same. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30144 MFA No. 2910 of 2014 15. The petitioner is also entitled for a sum of ₹20,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life. The compensation awarded under the other heads need not call for any interference. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of ₹ 2,26,242/- under different heads as below: Injury, pain and suffering ₹ 45,000/- Loss of future earning ₹ 95,040/- Loss of earnings during the period of treatment ₹ 16,602/- Attendant expenses ₹ 600/- Medical expenses ₹ 47,000/- Travelling expenses ₹ 2,000/- Loss of amenities ₹ 20,000/- Total Less: awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement ₹2,26,242/- ₹1,36,289/- ₹ 89,953/- 16. Thus, the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation of ₹89,953/- together with interest at 6% p.a. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30144 MFA No. 2910 of 2014 ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The petitioner is entitled for a sum of ₹89,953/- in addition to the sum of ₹1,36,289/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation. Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within eight weeks from today. On such deposit, the entire enhanced compensation be released to the petitioner. Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal remains unaltered. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30