IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5914 OF 2015 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SRI. P. RAMESHA, S/O PUTTASWAMACHARY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT GAJJEGANAHALLI VILLAGE, AND POST, BILIKERE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK – 571 105 …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUMA KEDILAYA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PADMANABHA KEDILAYA V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. M. MUJEEB ALI, S/O MEHABOOB, Digitally signed by R/O NO.113/2, MADHUSHREE KIRIGUVALA VILLAGE, H Location: H igh MALAVALLI TALUK, Court of MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 430 Karnataka

2. AEJAZ, S/O ABDUL RAWOOF, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO.60, MD PEER STREET, KOLLEGAL TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT – 571 313

3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE-II, B N ROAD, OPP KSRTC BUS STAND, MYSURU – 570 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;

R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;

VIDE ORDER DATED 30.03.2017, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO a) INCREASE THE COMPENSATION AWARDED ON 15.07.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.844/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & MACT, MYSURU; b) GRANT COST OF THIS APPEAL AND INTEREST ATLEAST AT THE RATE OF 12%, AS THE PETITIONER HAS SUFFERED LOSS AND OTHER RELIEFS WHICH DEEMED FIT BY THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the appellant / claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation arising out of judgment and award dated 15.07.2013, in MVC No.844/2012, passed by the V Additional District Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mysuru (for short ‘Tribunal’).

2. The date of accident, involvement of the vehicle, injury sustained and the liability to pay compensation are not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. Heard Smt.Suma Kedilaya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.A.Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 – Insurance Company. Though respondent No.1 is served but remained unrepresented. Vide order dated 30.03.2017, notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

4. Smt.Suma Kedilaya, learned counsel for the appellant with all vehemence submitted that as per Ex.P.7 – Discharge card and Ex.P.8 - two O.P. slips, which clearly discloses that the appellant has suffered fracture of tibia lower 1/3^rd, undisplaced fracture of left malleoli and 5^th metastrasal bone fracture of left lower limb and he was hospitalized for a period of 15 days in K.R. Hospital, Mysuru and was treated conservatively. The Tribunal has not properly considered the case of the appellant and awarded meager compensation under all heads which require enhancement except medical expenses. Accordingly, sought to allow the appeal and enhance compensation by modifying the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

5. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri.A.Ravishankar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 with all vehemence submitted that the Tribunal after considering entire material placed before it, awarded appropriate compensation. The injuries have not resulted in any disability. In the circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court.

Accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused entire appeal papers as well as trial Court record.

7. The only point that would arise for consideration by this Court is:-

“Whether compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the year of accident, is just and proper within the meaning of ‘just compensation’?”

8. My answer to the above point for consideration is partly in the affirmative for th