- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3385 MFA No. 9040 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21STDAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9040/2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SMT VIJAYA C W/O SURESH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS NO.E 73, 2NDB CROSS RAJIVGANDHI NAGARA KEBBEHALLA BANGALORE-560 091 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K SHANTHARAJ.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD REGIONAL OFFICE 5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001. 2. PJB ENTERPRICES PVT LTD NO.143, RATHNA BUIDLING 4TH FLOOR, RICHMON ROAD BANGALORE-560 025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND FOR R1.,ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2-PJB ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.-SERVED) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED20/02/2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1841/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL SMALL Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3385 MFA No. 9040 of 2015 CAUSES JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, 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 MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 20.02.2015 passed in MVC No.1841/2013 on the file of the XII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, MACT, Bangalore, for enhancing the compensation. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The Injured claimant aged 35 years met with an accident on 15.12.2012 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3385 MFA No. 9040 of 2015 Rs.2,09,221/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, she preferred an appeal and mainly contended that the doctor assessed the disability as 16% of the whole body. But the tribunal had taken the same as 10%. The amount granted under other heads are meager and thus requested for enhancement of the compensation. 5. Learned counsel of the respondent contended that the Tribunal is always having discretion to consider the disability based on the evidence of the doctor and thus the Tribunal rightly considered it as 10% and it needs no interference. 6. Though petitioner stated that she was working as a tailor and earning Rs.6,800/- per month. She has not filed any income proof. As she met with an accident in the year 2012, her notional income is to be taken as Rs.7,000/-, as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3385 MFA No. 9040 of 2015 Legal Services Authority and she was aged 35 years and the multiplier to be taken is 16. 7. As per Ex.P4/wound certificate, petitioner sustained the following injuries. “1) Fracture of anterior wall of right acetabulum. 2) Fracture both ala of sacrum. 3) Fracture bilateral inferior and superior pubic rami. 4) Fracture of left pubic bone. 5) Fracture transverse process of L5 (Bilateral) and L1 and L2 left vertebra. 6) Fracture of right 8 to 11th ribs. 7) Injuries to pelvic region and urethral region. 8) Injuries to both legs.” Out of the above injuries, all are fractures and grievous in nature. She was hospitalized for a period of 12 days and she examined PW2/doctor and he stated as follows; “1) Fracture of anterior wall of right acetabulum. 2) Fracture both ala of sacrum. 3) Fracture bilateral inferior and superior pubic rami. 4) Fracture transverse process of L5 (Bilateral) and L1 and L2 left vertebra. 5) Fracture of pubic bone. 6) Fracture of right 8 to 11th ribs.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3385 MFA No. 9040 of 2015 8. She underwent emergency exploration and repair of vaginal laceration on 15-12-2012 and pelvic fractures were treated conservatively. The whole body disability was considered as 16%. He was not a treated doctor. But considering the other medical documents, he assessed the disability. But he has not issued any disability certificate. He further stated that even if she has undergone physiotherapy, there is no chance of reducing the risk. He further stated that as per Ex.P4 she sustained injuries as follows; “Contusion pelvic with vaginal laceration with fracture of right acetabulum, sacrum, bilateral inferior and superior public rami, L5 transverse process, pubic bone and fracture of 8 to 11th ribs.” 9. It is submitted that he was crossing the road in front of the big bazar. She fully crossed the road and was about to step on the footpath in front of the big bazar by carefully observing all the traffic, but Driver of the jeep came in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly took the said vehicle full right turn and dashed her. The - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3385 MFA No. 9040 of 2015 Tribunal assessed the contributory negligence of the petitioner at 20% and that of the driver of the jeep as 80%. The manner of accident shows while she was crossing the road, in front of big bazar and fully crossed the road and was about to step on the footpath in front of the big bazar, when driver of the jeep bearing Reg. No.KL03-ML-1914 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed her. As a result, she sustained grievous injuries. The Tribunal relied upon the evidence of PSI and also relied upon Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 and contended that there is no Zebra Cross while crossing the road and she contributed for the accident. The Tribunal considered the said evidence and held that 20% contributory negligence is fixed upon her. But admittedly she was crossing the road and crossed the entire road and was about to enter into the footpath. The jeep came to the wrong side and dashed her and moreover it is not the case of the insurance company that she was in a drunken condition - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3385 MFA No. 9040 of 2015 and therefore apportionment of contribution negligence to an extent of 20% is erroneous and is set aside. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a citation reported in Civil Appeal No. n SLP No.15621/2025, in which it was held that the Tribunal cannot substitute its own view to that of the expert's opinion without any contra material. It is a case of amputation of the left leg and doctor assessed the disability as 70%. But the Tribunal has taken only 50% and the Apex Court considered it as 100% disability. This Court finds it reasonable to take the disability as 16% for the body disability based on the evidence of the doctor. The loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.7,000 x 12 x 16 x 16% = Rs.2,15,040/-. Admittedly petitioner sustained several fractures and injuries and was hospitalized for period of 12 days. Therefore, this court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.75,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs.40,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3385 MFA No. 9040 of 2015 and Tribunal granted Rs.28,241/- towards medical bills as she already took treatment under ESI scheme and it is confirmed. The Petitioner might not have attended any other work at least for a period of 6 months due to the injuries sustained by her. Hence, loss of income during laid up period will be Rs.7000 x 6 = Rs.42000/- 11. Thus in all, components awarded by this court are as below, Sl.Nos. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 Loss of future income 2,15,040 2 Pain and suffering 75,000 3 Loss of amenities 50,000 4 for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges 40,000 5 Loss of income during laid down period 42,000 6 Medical Bills 28,241 Total 4,50,281 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3385 MFA No. 9040 of 2015 Hence, the compensation granted by Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.2,09,221/- to Rs.4,50,281/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 12. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 20.02.2015 passed in MVC No.1841/2013 on the file of the XII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, MACT, Bangalore, is modified. iii. The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,50,281/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.2,09,221/- granted by the tribunal. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3385 MFA No. 9040 of 2015 iv. Respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,41,060/- with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order. v. On such deposit, petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same. vi. On 17.01.2019, the delay of 165 days is condoned by this Court on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest in case of enhancement. Hence, respondent/Insurance is not liable to pay the interest for the delayed period. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61