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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28791

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026


BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K


MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2692 OF 2020 (MV-I)

C/W

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3923 OF 2020 (MV-I)

IN MFA No. 2692/2020

BETWEEN:

SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

S/O. SHIVAMURTHY,

R/O KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE,

SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TOWN

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

BANGALORE - 562 114.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY D., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

RUKMINI TOWERS

NO. 3/1, PLATFORM ROAD

RAILWAY APPROACH ROAD,

SEHSADRIPURAM

BANGALORE - 560 020

REP. BY ITS MANAGER.

2. SRI. P. PURUSHOTHAM

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

S/O P. VENUGOPAL

R/A NO. 185, 5TH CROSS

SHANTINIKETHAN

NRI LAYOUT, K.R. PURAM

BANGALORE - 560 036.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE FOR R1;

NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.4944/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MACT.

IN MFA NO. 3923/2020

BETWEEN:

VIJAY KUMAR

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

M/O MARIYAPPA

R/O NEAR GEF EYE HOSPITAL,

HOSAKOTE TOWN,

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

BANGALORE - 562 114.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY D., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

RUKMINI TOWERS,

NO.3/1, PLATFORM ROAD/

RAILWAY APPROACH ROAD,

SHESHADRI PURAM

BANGALORE - 560 020,

REP. BY ITS MANAGER.

2. SRI. P. PURUSHOTHAM

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

S/O P. VENUGOPAL

R/AT NO.188, 5TH CROSS,

SHANTINIKETHAN, NRI LAYOUT,

K.R. PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 036.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE FOR R1;

V/O DTD 10.04.2023, APPEAL AGAINST

R2 IS DISMISSED)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.4943/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-14.

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 22.01.2020 passed by the MACT, Bengaluru City, SCH-14 (for short, the 'Tribunal'), in M.V.C. Nos.4944/2017 and 4943/2017, whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions filed by the appellants-claimants.

2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 14.06.2017, at about 4.30 a.m., the petitioners, after completing their duty at EMC2 DELL Company, Mahadevapura, Nekkundi, were proceeding towards Hosakote on a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-03/HT-371. When they reached near the service road after crossing Lanco Toll, Hosakote, the driver of a Toyota Etios car bearing Reg. No. KA-53/C-3856 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioners' motorcycle. As a result, both the petitioners sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, they were shifted to Srinivasa Specialty Hospital, Hosakote, where they took treatment as in-patients and underwent several operations. Subsequently, they lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional Police and later filed claim petitions before the Tribunal, i.e., M.V.C. No. 4944/2017 filed by the appellant in M.F.A. No. 2692/2020 and M.V.C. No. 4943/2017 filed by the appellant in M.F.A. No. 3923/2023, as stated supra.

4. On assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions filed by the petitioners and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,50,200/- in M.V.C.No.4943/2017 and Rs.4,25,320/- in M.V.C.No.4944/2017. Aggrieved by the same and seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded, both the claimants have preferred these appeals.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company in both the appeals.

6. Apart from urging several contentions, the learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals primarily contended that the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation under different heads, particularly under the heads of 'pain and suffering' and 'medical expenses'. According to him, although the claimant in M.V.C. No.4944/2017 produced medical bills amounting to Rs.1,37,396/-, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.75,000/

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top