- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:195 MFA No. 5801 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5802 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5801 OF 2016 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5802 OF 2016 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 5801/2016 BETWEEN: SMT. SOWBHAGYA, W/O EMMANUEL SELVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A NO.5/16, 3RD MAIN, 6TH CROSS, VENKATAPURA, KORAMANGALA 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 034. AND ALSO AT: NO.4, INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. …APPELLANT (BY SRI VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI VENKATESH, S/O LATE GANGDU, MAJOR BY AGE, C/O BOWRING HOSPITAL QUARTERS, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 051. 2. M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., RAJAJINAGAR BRANCH, Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:195 MFA No. 5801 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5802 of 2016 NO.65, ESHWARI COMPLEX, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 021. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.V SUDHAKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; V/O DATED 20.03.2024 NOTICE TO R-1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.4800/14 ON THE FILE OF THE 9TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & 34TH ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 5802/2016 BETWEEN: SRI EMMANUEL, S/O DAVID SELVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.5/16, 3RD MAIN, 6TH CROSS,VENKATAPURA, KORAMANGALA 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 034. AND ALSO R/AT: NO.4, INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI VENKATESH, S/O LATE GANGDU, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:195 MFA No. 5801 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5802 of 2016 MAJOR BY AGE, C/O BOWRING HOSPITAL QUARTERS, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU. 2. M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., RAJAJINAGAR BRANCH, NO.65, ESHWARI COMPLEX, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 021, BY ITS MANAGER. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.V SUDHAKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED 20.03.2024) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 1.6.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.4801/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 9TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 34TH ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER MACT-7, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for both sides in both the appeals. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:195 MFA No. 5801 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5802 of 2016 2. MFA.No.5801/2016 is filed by the petitioner in MVC.No.4800/2014 and MFA.No.5802/2016 is filed by the petitioner in MVC.No.4801/2014, which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 01.06.2016 by IX Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru. 3. By impugned judgment, the Tribunal held that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence inasmuch as he was driving an ambulance, a Maruthi Omni, which was used as a transport vehicle and therefore, the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation amount. Substantially, learned counsel appearing for the appellant is arguing that the said finding is not sustainable in law in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited1 as well as its later reiteration in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi and others2. 1 (2017) 14 SCC 663 2 (2025) 3 SCC 95 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:195 MFA No. 5801 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5802 of 2016 He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and therefore, it has to be enhanced. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 would submit that insofar as the liability to pay the compensation is concerned, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (Supra) has to be accepted. Insofar as the quantum is concerned, he submits that adequate material was not produced before the Tribunal by the petitioners and therefore, the Tribunal is justified in awarding global compensations in addition to the 'medical expenses' incurred by the petitioners. 5. A perusal of the records would show that on 05.01.2014 at 04.30 p.m., the petitioners who were the husband and wife were proceeding on a motorbike bearing No.KA-03-HS-8340 and it was hit by a Maruthi Omni (an ambulance) bearing No.KA-05-M-3053 resulting in their - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:195 MFA No. 5801 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5802 of 2016 fall and sustaining injuries. The petitioner in MVC.No.4800/2014, who was a pillion rider, fell down and sustained injury to the left heel, ankle contusion with pain and a soft tissue injury. These injuries were described to be simple injuries as per the Wound Certificate at Ex.P6 and the Radiological Report at Ex.P12. Therefore, the Tribunal has awarded a global compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner in addition to the 'medical expenses' of Rs.16,427/-. Obviously, the petitioner had not produced any material to show as to for how many days she was bedridden or she had applied for leave from her job. In the absence of any such material on record, which could have been considered as best evidence which was available for the petitioner, no fault can be found with the compensation determined by the Tribunal. 6. Insofar as MVC.No.4801/2014 is concerned, the petitioner therein had suffered fracture of neck of radius and it was a grievous injury as per the documents at Exs.P9, 10 and 14. However, the petitioner did not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:195 MFA No. 5801 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5802 of 2016 produce the discharge summary so that in order to show the nature of the treatment taken by him. In the absence of the nature of the treatment taken by the petitioner, the Tribunal held that he is entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.16,887/- towards the 'medical expenses'. In the considered opinion of this Court, in the absence of any material on record to show the nature of the treatment taken by the petitioner, by noting that he had suffered the fracture of neck of radius and he was working as a Senior Sales Executive at M/s. Dovetail Furniture Pvt. Ltd., it would be proper to award an additional sum of Rs.25,000/-, which would cover all the claim concerning the 'loss of income during laid-up period' and 'attendant charges etc.'. 7. As noted supra, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (Supra) and later its reiteration of those views in Rambha Devi (Supra), the liability has to be fastened upon the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:195 MFA No. 5801 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5802 of 2016 respondent No.2-Insurance Company. It is undisputed that the ambulance/Maruthi Omni is a vehicle having unladen weight of less than 7,500 kg and therefore, the question of the driver having no license for transport vehicle would be irrelevant. Hence, the appeals deserve to be allowed in above terms. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The appeals are allowed-in-part. ii) The petitioners in both these appeals are entitled for compensation from the respondent No.2- Insurance Company. iii) The compensation determined by the Tribunal in MVC.No.4800/2014 is hereby affirmed. iv) The petitioner in MVC.No.4801/2014 is entitled for an additional sum of Rs.25,000/- globally in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:195 MFA No. 5801 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5802 of 2016 iv) In the event of deposit of the compensation amount, entire amount be released to the petitioners. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24