IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 507 OF 2013 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SMT. MANORAMA P. RAO W/O NS PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RAJATHADRI NIVAS SUNNADA BEEDI VIRAJPET TOWN AND TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT.

APPELLANT (BY SRI. K. SHASHIKUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. S. PRABHUSWAMI S/O SHIVAMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS NO.176, 4TH MAIN Digitally 7TH CROSS, GELEYARA BALAGA signed by MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT NIRMALA BANGALORE-560086.

DEVI Location: 2. GS MAHADEVA SWAMI HIGH S/O GV SHIVA SWAMI COURT OF AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS KARNATAKA NO.2306, 3RD B MAIN VIJAYANAGAR, 2ND STAGE HAMPINAGAR, BANGALORE-560040.

3. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD BANGALORE.

RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI., ADVOCATE FO R3;

V/O DTD 19.02.2015 NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.10.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.49/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN), M ACT, VIRAJPET, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC,.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

The above appeal is filed by the claimant under Section

173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1988’ challenging the judgment and award dated 15.10.2011 passed in MVC.No.49/2010 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and MACT, Virajpet, Hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’, wherein the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of `1,38,420/- together with interest at 6% per annum from date of petition till realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation.

2. The findings of the Tribunal on negligence and liability are not under challenge and the same has attained

finality. Hence, the only question that is required to be considered in the present appeal is with regard to the adequacy of the quantum of compensation awarded.

3. The Tribunal while adjudicating upon the quantum of compensation to be awarded held as under:

"10. According to the petitioner, due to the said accident she has spent a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses. In support of her contention, she has produced 32 medical bills at E.xP.7 and 14 medical prescription at Ex.P.8. By considering the relevant medical bills Rs.70,420/- is awarded towards medical expenses. According to the concerned doctor, the petitioner has sustained fracture of both bones of left leg. By considering the same, Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards pain and agony. According to the concerned doctor, on examination, the petitioner has swelling over left leg tenderness over distal 2/3rd of left leg with painful abnormal mobility at left tibia. Abrasion over left leg. Painful limitation of left ankle joint movements by 10 to 15 degrees, functional disabilities has been assessed up to 10% of left leg and ankle joint. There is no change in her condition. There is an implant. They have to be removed after 2 years. She needs another surgery for removing the implant. She is a housewife and this disability will be a problem for her in her day to day life. By considering the evidence of concerned doctor Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards future medical expenses and Rs.20,000/-is awarded towards loss of future happiness. By considering the treatment taken by the petitioner as inpatient Rs.3,000/- is awarded towards attendant charges, nourishment, food etc. Therefore, the petitioner in all is entitled for 1,38,420/-."

4. It is noticed that, the claimant was aged 47 years as on date of the accident i.e., on 02.01.2010. It is averred that the claimant is a housewife.

5. It is forthcoming from perusal of the wound certificate (Ex.P3), discharge summary (Ex.P4) and disability certificates (Exs.P5/P12), that the