Karnataka High Court
Y V Swetha vs Vinay Bhosale on 12 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:31303
MFA No. 8621 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH 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:
1. VINAY BHOSALE
S/O S M BHOSALE
AGE-MAJOR, RES: 232, RATHADA BEEDI,
Digitally signed
by NANDINI R OPP: MARAMMA TEMPLE, BUILDING,
Location: HIGH CHIKKABANAVARA POST,
COURT OF BANGLAORE
KARNATAKA
2. 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.
2. 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-S-
9997 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,
NC: 2025:KHC:31303
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.
3. 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.
4. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues, the
petitioner was examined as PW.1, and got marked the
NC: 2025:KHC:31303
HC-KAR
documents as Exs.P1 to P8. No evidence was lead on
behalf of the respondents.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2-Insurance Company defended the
quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
NC: 2025:KHC:31303
HC-KAR
8. 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 'pain and suffering', a sum of Rs.15,000/- under
the head 'loss of income during laid up period', a sum of
Rs.10,000/- under the head 'attendant charges, traveling
expenses, food and nourishment etc.,', a sum of
Rs.88,000/- under the head of 'medical expenses' as per
the bills produced by the petitioner, a sum of
Rs.30,000/- under the head of 'loss of amenities in life'.
NC: 2025:KHC:31303
HC-KAR
9. 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
