[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Suresha vs M P Mahesh on 6 February, 2026

                            -1-

                                     MFA No.1790 of 2014



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                         BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1790/2014(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SURESHA,
S/O DASEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESIDENT AT SHANKARANAHALLY,
SHANKARANAHALLY POST,
KATTAYA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK-573 201,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
                                             ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. CHETHAN .B, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     M.P. MAHESH,
       MAJOR,
       RESIDENT AT: 14, 10TH MAIN,
       A.D. HALLY,
       BASAVESHWARA NAGARA,
       BENGALURU-560 079.

2.     THE MANAGER,
       UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
       COMPANY LTD.,
       NO.109, SSI AREA,
       RAJAJINAGAR, 5TH BLOCK,
       DASASHRAMA, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD,
       BENGALURU-560 010.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
 V/O DTD:28.05.2024 NOTICE TO R1 IS H/S)
                                 -2-

                                          MFA No.1790 of 2014



     THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16.11.2013 PASSED IN
MVC NO.903/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & ADDL. MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
29.01.2026 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

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under

Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the

judgment and award dated 16.11.2013 passed in

MVC No.903/2012 on the file of the ADDL. Senior Civil

Judge & ADDL. MACT, Hassan, for enhancing the

compensation.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2. In

spite of the service of notice, respondent No.1 remained

ex-parte. The ranks of the parties are retained as per

tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The petitioner met with an accident on

30.05.2012 and filed claim petition claiming compensation

of Rs.5,00,000/-, the tribunal considering the entire

evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.31,000/-

with interest rate of 6% p.a. from date of petition till

realization. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is

preferred by claimant for enhancement of the

compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the claimant mainly

contended that the Tribunal assessed the income of the

appellant on lower side and also amount granted under

other head are meager and thus requested for

enhancement of the compensation.

5. Learned counsel for respondent argued that as

per the MLC extract at Ex.P9 it is mentioned as history of

road traffic accident happened around 08.00 p.m., near

Shankararanahally-two wheeler X two wheeler and the

injuries sustained by the petitioner are (1) Abrasion over

forehead, (2) Abrasion over nose, (3) Abrasion over the

upper lip and (4) Abrasion over the right leg, is in a

different ink and different handwritings. But in the

petition, petitioner stated that while he was travelling on

Hero Honda Motorbike bearing Reg.No.KA-13-X-9601, one

Tata Indica car bearing Reg.No. No.KA-4-B-3514 came in a

rash and negligent manner and dashed to him and thus

subsequently they have implicated the four wheeler to

claim compensation wrongfully and thus they are not liable

to pay the compensation but the tribunal erred in fixing

the liability against them. The said issue was raised

before the Tribunal. It was observed by the tribunal that in

Ex.P9 there was such endorsement, but on perusal of the

writings, it is clear that two wheeler X two wheeler is in a

different ink and different handwriting with that of the

below sentence. The said sentence is not explained either

by the petitioner or by the respondents. Though

Insurance Company stated that car was implicated. They

have not adduced any independent evidence to dispute the

case of the petitioner.

6. Further, the petitioner produced Ex.P5 IMV/report

and it shows that damages are caused to both the

vehicles. The front wheel and steering handle of the bike

are completely damaged and front side right door of the

Tata Indica car was also damaged. If at all the two

vehicles are not involved in accident, there will not be any

damage to the car. Therefore, merely based on the entry

in the MLC register extract, this Court cannot come to the

conclusion that there is no involvement of Tata Indica car.

Admittedly, after the investigation, charge sheet is filed

against the driver of the offending vehicle car. There was

suggestion to PW1, that accident was only between two

wheeler and two wheeler and he sustained injuries by self-

fall from the bike, but he denied the same. PW1 stated

that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the bike bearing Reg.No.KA-13-X-9601.

Therefore, in view of admission of the PW1 and also in

view of charge sheet filed against the car driver, this Court

finds that there is negligence on the part of both the

drivers i.e. driver of the motorbike and also driver of the

car. The petitioner produced the copy of the insurance

policy of the Tata Indica car, on perusal of the same it

shows it is a passenger carrying commercial vehicle and

liability only policy. But the driver of the Tata Indica car

has no driving license. The petitioner also produced the

driving license of the car, but it is not a valid and effective

driving license to drive Passenger Carry Commercial

Vehicle. This clearly shows that the driver of the car was

not holding valid and effective driving license and hence it

was held that respondent No.2 is not liable to pay

respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 owner of the

vehicle alone is liable to pay the compensation. The

injured herein filed claim petition only against the owner

and insurer of the Tata Indica car. But the owner and

insurer of the Hero Honda motorbike are not impleaded as

parties. This court finds it reasonable to assess the

contributorty negligence of the petitioner as 40% and that

of the driver of the car as 60%. The driver of the car has

no valid driving license. As per the citation in case of

Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental insurance company

limited reported in Air 2017 SC 3368 finds it reasonable to

invoke the pay and recovery order against the insurance

company.

7. The petitioner sustained the following injuries as

per Ex.P7,

"1. Abrasion over forehead.

2. Abrasion over nose.

3. Abrasion over upper lip.

4. Subconjunctival haemorrhage with periorbital swelling Lt. Eye.

5. Tooth mobility."

out of which, injury Nos.1 to 3 are simple in nature and

injury Nos.4 and 5 are grevious. Petitioner has not

examined the doctor. Considering the nature of injuries,

period of hospitalization, this court finds it reasonable to

grant an amount of Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering

and Rs.15,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.15,000/-

for transportation extra nourishment and attendant

charges. This court also finds it reasonable to grant an

amount of Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses, though

petitioner has not filed any medical record. Ex.P15 was

produced for repair of vehicle for an amount of

Rs.14,914/- but the Tribunal held that the petitioner has

not claimed any compensation for damages to the vehicle

and accordingly rejected the said amount. However, as

per Ex.P15, this court finds it reasonable to grant

Rs.14,914/- towards damages of the vehicle.

8. Thus in all, components awarded by this court

are as below,

Particulars Amount Sl.Nos.

in Rs.

   1        Pain and suffering                               50,000
   2        Loss of amenities                               15,000
   3        Transportation,             extra               15,000
            nourishment and         attendant
            charges.
   4        Future medical expenses                         10,000
   6        Towards vehicle repair                          14,914
            Total                                        1,04,914

Hence, the compensation granted by Tribunal is

enhanced from Rs.31,000/- to Rs.1,04,914/- along with

interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

9. In the result, the following order is passed:

ORDER

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

ii. The judgment and award dated

16.11.2013 passed in MVC No.903/2012 on

the file of the ADDL. Senior Civil Judge &

ADDL. MACT, Hassan, is modified.

iii. The claimant is entitled for 60% of the total

sum of Rs.1,04,914/- along with interest

at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the

date of realization, instead of Rs.31,000/-

granted by the tribunal.

iv. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company has

already deposited the awarded amount

- 10 -

before the tribunal. It is to be verified

whether the respondent No.2/Insurance

Company is deposited 60% of the

compensation of Rs.1,04,914/- along with