- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010487912016 NC: 2026:KHC:43770 MFA.CROB No. 139 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2899 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 139 OF 2016 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2899 OF 2016 (MV-I) IN MFA.CROB No. 139/2016: BETWEEN: SMT. JANANI W/O SUGUTHAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.124, WEST TRINITY, HECTORS WOOD APARTMENT, SARJAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE. …CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SRI. O MAHESH., ADVOCATE) AND: R KUMARI NIRMALA D/O M RAMAKRISHANAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.6.3, A.E.C.S. LAYOUT, C BLOCK, 1ST CROSS, NEAR KUNDANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 037. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. MANJULA R., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA.NO.2899/2016 FILED U/O 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, R/W SEC. 169(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED04.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010487912016 NC: 2026:KHC:43770 MFA.CROB No. 139 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2899 of 2016 NO.3807/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, & XXXIV ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-7, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,06,600/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT. IN MFA NO. 2899/2016: BETWEEN: MISS R KUMARI NIRMALA D/O SRI.M.RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.63, AECS LAYOUT, ‘C’ BLOCK, 1ST CROSS, NEAR KUNDANAHALLI BENGALURU-560 037. ...APPELLANT (BY SMT. MANJULA .R, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT JANANI W/O SRI.SUGATHAN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.124, WEST TRINITY HECTRES WOOD APARTMENTS, SARJAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. O MAHESH., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 04.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.3807/13 ON THE FILE OF THE 9TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & 36TH ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010487912016 NC: 2026:KHC:43770 MFA.CROB No. 139 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2899 of 2016 THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 04.08.2026 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 MFA Crob No.139/2016 in MFA No.2899/2016 is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC read with section 169 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and award dated 04.01.2016 passed in MVC No.3807/2013 on the file of IX Additional Small Causes Judge and XXXIV ACMM, ACMM, Member, MACT-7, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal). 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioner met with an accident on 30.10.2010 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.1,06,600/- along with - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010487912016 NC: 2026:KHC:43770 MFA.CROB No. 139 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2899 of 2016 interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the owner of the vehicle preferred this appeal and mainly contended that there is statutory obligation under Rule 235 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to send notices to the owner/s and driver/s of the vehicle/s said to be involved in the accident and call upon them to produce an evidence they wish to tender on the issue of negligence. As per the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Machindranath Kernath Kasar Vs D.S.Mylarappa & Ors reported in 2008 ACJ 1964 it is held that the “Driver is necessary party to decide the issue of negligence”. 5. It is further held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the auto. The petitioner was travelling as a passenger. When the driver was a necessary party to the petition, petition is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. There was no proper issue raised and non-framing of the issue vitiates the entire proceedings. Further contended that the manner of alleged accident in question and for whose negligence it occurred is contrary to law - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010487912016 NC: 2026:KHC:43770 MFA.CROB No. 139 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2899 of 2016 and material evidence on the record. There was no evidence of any independent witness, except the self-serving interest testimony of the injured. Eye witness Mr.Shivaswami was not examined to prove the manner of accident or negligence. The complaint at Ex.P2 was given by the driver of the auto on 30.10.2010 and immediately before spot mahazar and spot sketch were prepared in the presence of Shivaswami, the said independent eyewitness, but he was not examined. In CC No.1433/2010, it was held that the driver of the auto also contributed for the negligence, as he was a driver of transport vehicle carrying public, auto was damaged. If at all the accident occurred as narrated by the claimant, the front portion of the auto would be damaged, instead of left side of the vehicle. As recorded in IMV report, at Ex.P17, it clearly shows that driver of the auto tried to overtake the car and in that process of taking right turn, he dashed the car, as such driver of auto was guilty of contributory negligence. Therefore, requested to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. 6. Against the same order passed by the tribunal in MVC.No.3807/2013, the claimants filed appeal before this court - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010487912016 NC: 2026:KHC:43770 MFA.CROB No. 139 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2899 of 2016 in MFA No.2899/2016 for enhancement of compensation and mainly contended that the injured was inpatient for a period of one week and as an outpatient took treatment for 6 months. He sustained major injuries including fracture in the left arm. He was working as Central Government employee at NSSO-DPC Kendriya Sadan as Data Entry Operator and getting salary of Rs.30,000/- p.m., Now she cannot work efficiently due to the insertion of the rod in her arm and unable to drive two wheeler and also car. She spent Rs.1 lakh towards medical expenses tribunal granted only Rs.67,600/-. But she got reimbursement only for Rs.11,000/-. The amounts granted by the tribunal under other heads are meager. Therefore, requested this court to enhance the amount. As the petitioner was Central Government employee and continued her employment even after accident, no amount was granted under the head loss of future earning capacity. She filed Ex.P6/Wound certificate and Ex.P12/Discharge Summary and also other relevant medical records and examined the doctor as PW.2. As per Ex.P6/Wound certificate, the injured sustained one grievous injury and was hospitalized for 4 days. The claimant sustained injury to left arm fracture humerus middle 1/3rd left and after - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010487912016 NC: 2026:KHC:43770 MFA.CROB No. 139 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2899 of 2016 pre-op antibiotics coverage and obtaining physical fitness, the Petitioner underwent surgeries, i.e., open reduction and internal fixation humerus with 7 holed LCP plate and screws and wound debridement + suturing of left right finger on 30.10.2010 under G.A, which is not tallied with the injury shown in Ex.P.6 Wound Certificate. Further, it is stated that in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained closed fracture mid third shaft left femur, which is grievous in nature and by admitting as an inpatient for 4 days at Hosmat Hospital, she took treatment to the said accidental injury and during the course of treatment, Open Reduction internal fixation with 7 holed LCP left humorous done and after the proper and required treatment, the petitioner is continuing her job and getting the same salary without any break. 7. On examination of PW2/doctor he stated that she can do her normal work and that she is working in the same cadre and getting the same salary. He assessed the permanent physical disability as 62%. As per medical certificate, she submitted reimbursement bill for an amount of Rs.71,290/-, but they have reimbursed only Rs.12,133/- amount. Thus, she - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010487912016 NC: 2026:KHC:43770 MFA.CROB No. 139 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2899 of 2016 is entitled for Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses. Tribunal already granted Rs.67,600/- towards medical expenses and the said amount is confirmed. Further, considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization, disability assessed by the doctor, her occupation and other relevant factors, this court finds that it is just and reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.30,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Further, Rs.60,000/- is granted towards loss of income during the treatment period. 8. Thus in all, components awarded by this court are as below, Sl. Nos. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 Pain and suffering 60,000 2 Loss of amenities 30,000 3 Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. 30,000 4 Loss of income during treatment period 60,000 5 Medical bills 67,600 Total 2,47,600 - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010487912016 NC: 2026:KHC:43770 MFA.CROB No. 139 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2899 of 2016 Hence, the compensation granted by tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,06,600/- to Rs.2,47,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 9. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i. MFA No.2899/2016 filed by the petitioner before the tribunal is hereby allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 04.01.2016 passed in MVC No.3807/2013 passed by the Tribunal, is modified. iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,47,600/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.1,06,600/- granted by the tribunal. iv. Respondent/Insurance Company has already deposited the awarded amount before the tribunal. Therefore, respondent/Insurance - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010487912016 NC: 2026:KHC:43770 MFA.CROB No. 139 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2899 of 2016 Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,41,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order. v. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same. 10. It was observed by the tribunal that the manner of accident as per the petition is on 30.10.2010 while she was going to her office in an autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-05-AB- 5791. One Maruthi car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-N-4388, came in a rash and negligent manner and overtook the auto from left side. As a result, autorikshaw turned turtle. The case was registered against the driver of the car in Crime No 357/2010 under sections 279 and 334 of IPC. The Tribunal held that there was no policy existing as on the date of accident and thus held the owner of the vehicle liable to pay the compensation. 11. In the cross objections, owner of the vehicle contended that the accident occurred only due to the rash and - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010487912016 NC: 2026:KHC:43770 MFA.CROB No. 139 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2899 of 2016 negligence of the auto and no notice was given to them under Rule 235 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Act to prove the negligence of the driver. The owner of the vehicle is examined as RW1 and she filed Ex.R1 copy of the certificate, copy of the judgment in CC No.1433/2010 and Ex.R2/Copy of the driving license. She mainly contended that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of auto bearing Reg.No.KA- 05-AB-5791 12. If at all there was negligence as narrated by the claimant, the front portion of the auto would have been damaged instead of the left side of it, as per the IMV Report filed at Ex.P17. It is further stated that the driver of the auto tried to overtake the car and in the process of taking right turn, the accident occured. As such, he is also guilty of contributory negligence. Charge sheet is filed against the driver of the offending car. She further stated that she was acquitted of the charges in CC No.1433/2010 as driver was not made as a party, the driver of the auto is the proper and necessary party. But, he was not added. As such, Petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Tribunal rightly considered all the - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010487912016 NC: 2026:KHC:43770 MFA.CROB No. 139 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2899 of 2016 aspects and stated that the accident occurred only with the rash and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Maruthi car and the owner contested before the tribunal. Therefore, the points raised by the injured/claimant in the cross-objection is not justified. The cross-objections cannot be considered. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the tribunal. Hence, MFA No.139/2016 filed by cross objector by owner of the vehicle is dismissed. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76