SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 13856

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
TARA VITASTA GANJU
SRI. SAMPANGI RAMU S – Appellant
Versus
M/S. S V TRAVELS – Respondent
MFA 5279/2020



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5279 OF 2020 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SAMPANGI RAMU S S/O LATE SIDDAPPA M AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.288, GARVEBHAVI PALYA HOUSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIWALA POST BENGALURU - 560 068.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.S. ANANDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. M/S. S.V. TRAVELS BHOOMOIKA NILAYA NO.9, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, HOSAPALYA MAIN ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 068.

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 5TH AND 6TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN BUILDING HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAKESH M.T., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.V. CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 28.11.2022)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.02.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.2880/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SCJ AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-3, BENGALURU 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 MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking to challenge Judgment and Award dated 25.02.2020 in MVC No.2880/2017 passed by the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACMM, Member, MACT-3, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred as ‘Impugned Award’). By the Impugned Award the learned trial Court has awarded Rs.4,32,507/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

2. The brief facts are that the appellant/claimant on 25.04.2017 around 06.20 a.m. and was crossing the road near Garvebhavipalya bus stop and at that time driver of Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.KA-01-AE-7104, driving in a rash and negligent manner hit the appellant/claimant at the edge of the road. The appellant/claimant as a result of the accident sustained injuries and was hospitalized at St. John's Hospital, Bangalore. The appellant/claimant states that he took treatment as an inpatient for 52 days and also underwent several surgeries.

3. The appellant/claimant filed a claim before the Tribunal. Respondent No. 1 owner of the vehicle appeared. The case was contested by the owner of the offending vehicle and by the insurance company.

4. Based on the pleadings between the parties, the following issues were framed:

ISSUES

1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained grievous injuries in the accident occurred on 25-04-2017at about 6.20 a.m., on Hosur Main Road, Service Road, near Garvebhavipalya bus Stop, Bengaluru, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Indica Car bearing reg.No.KA-01-AE-7104 as alleged in the petition?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, from whom and at what quantum?

3. What Order or Award?”

5. The learned Tribunal examined the evidence before it and found that PW-1 was negligent since it was found that he was crossing the road and there was no zebra crossing at that place. Thus, the learned Tribunal deducted 25% as contributory negligence. The learned Tribunal also found that the claimant was unable to produce any documents showing his income and thus considered his income at Rs.8,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal also found that the records show the age of the petitioner as 60 years and thus calculated the loss of future income in the following terms:

“Rs.8,000 x 12 x 9 x 15/100 = Rs.1,29,600/-”

6. The learned Tribunal after examining the evidence between the parties gave a finding and awarded Rs.4,32,507/- in favour of the appellant/claimant in terms of the following:

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that his challenge is on four grounds. Firstly, he submits that the notional income in the year 2017 was Rs.11,000/- per month and at least that amount should have been awarded by the learned Tribunal. Secondly, he contends

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top