Y v Swetha Vs Vinay Bhosale — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

Y v Swetha Vs Vinay Bhosale — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed-in-part: enhancement of compensation by Rs.1,61,500/- over the Tribunal's award of Rs.16,500/-, payable with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till disposal before the Tribunal; other aspects ordered by the Tribunal remain unaltered.

Issue for consideration

Whether the compensation of Rs.16,500/- awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate, having been fixed without assessment under different heads for the injuries suffered, and whether it required reassessment and enhancement.

Court's answer

Considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner (posterior medial dislocation of ankle with chip fracture and fracture of posterior malleolus, tibia lower end, per Ex.P4) and the five-day inpatient treatment (Ex.P5), the amount awarded by the Tribunal was meager and required reassessment.

Ratio / Principle

Compensation was reassessed head-wise: Rs.35,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.15,000/- for loss of income during laid-up period; Rs.10,000/- for attendant charges, traveling expenses, food and nourishment; Rs.88,000/- towards medical expenses as per bills produced; and Rs.30,000/- for loss of amenities in life, totalling Rs.1,78,000/-.

Key takeaways

The appellant is entitled to Rs.1,61,500/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till disposal before the Tribunal; other aspects ordered by the Tribunal remain unaltered.ratio¶ORDER ii

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles Act S.173(1) enhancement appeal (MFA (MV)) against MACT award: pedestrian claimant (aged about 25 at accident; legal advisor with S.B.I., Tumkur) injured on 19.09.2009 when motorcycle KA-51-S9997 allegedly ridden rashly and negligently dashed against her, sustaining posterior medial dislocation of ankle with chip fracture and fracture of posterior malleolus, tibia lower end, with five days' inpatient treatment. Tribunal (Principal Senior Civil Judge, MACT-10, Tumkur, MVC No.1261/2009, award dated 15.06.2012) had awarded a lump-sum Rs.16,500/-. Held: given the nature of injuries and inpatient period, the Tribunal's award was meager; compensation reassessed head-wise at Rs.35,000 (pain and suffering), Rs.15,000 (loss of income during laid-up period), Rs.10,000 (attendant charges, travel, food and nourishment), Rs.88,000 (medical expenses per bills), Rs.30,000 (loss of amenities in life) — total Rs.1,78,000/-. Appeal allowed-in-part: Rs.1,61,500/- in addition to the Tribunal's award, with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till disposal before the Tribunal; other aspects of the Tribunal's order unaltered.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:31303 MFA No. 8621 of 2012

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8621 OF 2012 (MV)

BETWEEN:

Y V SWETHA D/O G V VENKATESHAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCU-LEGAL ADVISOR, RES: YALADIHALLI, HEBBUR HOBLI TUMKUR DISTRICT.

&APPELLANT

(BY SMT. M C UMADEVAMMA.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

VINAY BHOSALE

Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

S/O S M BHOSALE AGE-MAJOR, RES: 232, RATHADA BEEDI, OPP: MARAMMA TEMPLE, BUILDING, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, BANGLAORE

THE MANAGER,

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD DO-25, SHANKARANARAYA BUILDING M G ROAD, BANGALORE-1

&RESPONDENTS

(BY MS. NISHA REBELLO, ADV. FOR SRI. A M VENKATESH ADV. FOR R2, V/O DTD. 21.11.2013 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:31303 MFA No. 8621 of 2012

HC-KAR

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.06.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1261/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT-10, TUMKUR, 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 MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. By consent of both parties, though the matter is listed for admission, the same is taken for final disposal.

The case of the appellant is that she was working as an Assistant, who was the legal adviser of S.B.I. at Tumkur and on 19.09.2009, while she was proceeding on the road, a motorcycle bearing No.KA-51-S9997 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to her, resulting in she sustaining dislocation ankle with chip fracture and fracture of posterior melleolous, tibia lower end. She was admitted to the hospital, underwent surgery,

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31303 MFA No. 8621 of 2012

HC-KAR

and she was inpatient for five days. She contended that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2. Contending that she was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, she claimed compensation before the Tribunal.

On service of notice, respondent No.2 did not appear and was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.1, the owner of the vehicle, appeared and contended that he had insured the vehicle with respondent No.2 and the policy being in force, any liability has to be fastened upon the respondent. It was contended that the rider had a valid driving license and denied that there was any such actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle.

The Tribunal framed appropriate issues, the petitioner was examined as PW.1, and got marked the

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:31303 MFA No. 8621 of 2012

HC-KAR

documents as Exs.P1 to P8. No evidence was lead on

behalf of the respondents.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded

a sum of Rs.16,500/- as compensation. The said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are assailed before this Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal failed to assess the compensation under different heads and the compensation

is not fixed for injuries suffered by the petitioner. It was contended that the petitioner was working and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- p.m. and due to accidental injuries, she could not earn her livelihood, which has resulted monetary loss to her. Therefore, she seeks indulgence from this Court for reassessment of the compensation.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company defended the

quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:31303 MFA No. 8621 of 2012

HC-KAR

On a careful perusal of the records, it shows

that the petitioner was aged about 25 years at the time of the accident and the wound certificate, which is at Ex.P4 would indicate that there is a posterior medial dislocation of ankle with chip fracture and posterior melleolous, tibia lower end. This document coupled with Ex.P5 shows that she was an inpatient for five days. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner and the period of inpatient treatment, it is evident that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount to the petitioner. In the considered view of this Court, it would be just and proper to award a compensation a sum of Rs.35,000/- under the

head 8pain and suffering9, a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head 8loss of income during laid up period9, a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head 8attendant charges, traveling expenses, food and nourishment etc.,9, a sum of Rs.88,000/- under the head of 8medical expenses9 as per the bills produced by the petitioner, a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the head of 8loss of amenities in life9.

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:31303 MFA No. 8621 of 2012

HC-KAR

In light of the above, the petitioner is entitled to

total compensation of Rs.1,78,000/-. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed, and the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,61,500/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the following:

ORDER

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part.

ii. The petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,61,500/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the disposal before the Tribunal.

iii. Other aspects ordered by the Tribunal remain unaltered.

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

SSB