- 1 - MFA No. 6172 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER , 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6172 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MR. FELIX MINEZES S/O. LUVISA MINEZES AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT H.NO.3-8/6, ‘HOSANNA’ NEAR RAILWAY BRIDGE, PACHANADY, BONDEL POST, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-575 008. …APPELLANT (BY MISS. POOJA PARVATHI U., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. BHARATH BAVANI SHANKAR ADULT, S/O VISHWANATHA, R/AT 2-184(26), KAPETTU SITE, PADU VILLAGE, BONDANTHILA, NEERUMARGA, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-575 012. 2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 570, RECTIFIER HOUSE, NAIGUM CROSS ROAD, WADALA WEST, MUMBAI REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER – 400 031. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - 2 - MFA No. 6172 of 2016 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.05.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.386/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MANGALURU, D.K., PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 26.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is by the appellant/claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation arising out of judgment and award dated 26.05.2016 in MVC No.386/2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K., (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal for easy reference. 3. The brief facts of the case are that:- - 3 - MFA No. 6172 of 2016 On 03.07.2014 at about 8.45 a.m., the petitioner was walking on the extreme left side of the road on the mud portion near Railway Bridge, Pachanady village, Mangaluru Taluk, at that time, a Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-19/EH-6385 came from Vamanjoor side towards Pachanady in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. Due to the impact, the petitioner sustained injuries all over his body. Hence, filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act, 1988 seeking for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 4. After issuance of notice, respondents appeared through their respective counsel and respondent No.2/Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed written statement. 5. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner, the petitioner got himself examined as PW-1 and examined treated Doctor as PW-2 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P22. On the other hand, respondents did not examined any witness but got marked document at Ex.R.1. - 4 - MFA No. 6172 of 2016 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues and held that the Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay a total compensation of Rs.75,540/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per Ex.P.3, copy of wound certificate, appellant has sustained swelling and tenderness of right leg both bones fracture and distal 1/4th and other injuries all over his body. As per Exs.P.11 – discharge summary, petitioner was treated as an inpatient from 03.07.2014 to 05.07.2014 at Tejaswini Hospital, Mangaluru and was again admitted to KMC Hospital, Mangaluru on 08.07.2014 to 10.07.2014 and again admitted to KMC Hospital, Mangaluru on 17.02.2015 to 25.02.2015. The Tribunal has not properly considered the case of the appellant and awarded meager compensation under all heads, which require enhancement. Accordingly, sought to allow the - 5 - MFA No. 6172 of 2016 appeal and enhance compensation by modifying the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that the Tribunal after considering entire material placed before it, awarded appropriate compensation. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondent No.2 and perused entire material on record. 10. It is not in dispute that the appellant has suffered the injuries stated supra. However, it is seen that the compensation awarded under various heads are on the lower side. Taking into consideration the treatment taken and injuries suffered, I am of the considered view that the claimant would be entitled for total compensation as a - 6 - MFA No. 6172 of 2016 lumpsum amount of Rs.40,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company shall deposit the above compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 12. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in-part. ii. The judgment and award dated 26.05.2016 in MVC No.386/2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Principal Senior Civil Judge at Mangaluru, D.K., stands modified. iii. The appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. iv. The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within eight weeks from the date of award. - 7 - MFA No. 6172 of 2016 v. Upon deposit, entire amount shall be released in favour of appellant on proper identification in terms of award. vi. Registry is directed to transmit the TCR along with copy of this judgment to the Tribunal forthwith. vii. No order as to costs. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE MH/-