Karnataka High Court
Sri Ravikumar vs Sri Ramakrishanaiah on 30 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:29236
MFA No. 3351 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3351 OF 2021 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAVIKUMAR
S/O SHIVAMADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT KEMPEGOWDANADODDI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJU S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. RAMAKRISHANAIAH
S/O SAMPANGAIAH
R/AT NO.144, MAYAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
Digitally signed RAMANAGARA TALUK
by ANJALI M RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD, 1ST FLOOR
RVR COMPLEX
IN FRONT OF LIC OFFICE
BEHIND KSRTC BUS STAND
IJOOR, RAMANAGARA TOWN
RAMANAGARA-572 159
...RESPONDENTS
(BY VIDE ORDER DATED 10.01.2024,
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH;
SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:29236
MFA No. 3351 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.12.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 509/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT,
RAMANAGARA, 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 MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant/claimant, being aggrieved by the
judgment and award dated 24.12.2020 passed in
M.V.C.No.509/2015 by the III Additional District and
Sessions Judge and Member, Additional MACT,
Ramanagara, has preferred this appeal.
2. According to the claimant/appellant, he sustained
road traffic accidental injuries on 01.09.2015 at 08.00
p.m. when he was returning home in a Maxi Cab vehicle
bearing registration No.KA-09-6914 along with others. It
NC: 2025:KHC:29236
HC-KAR
is alleged that, the driver of the said Cab was rash and
negligent in driving the vehicle. In the said accident, he
sustained fracture of metacarpal bones of his right hand
besides abrasions. He was admitted to BGS Hospital,
Ramanagara and incurred expenses of Rs.2,00,000/-
towards medical charges. He has not completely
recovered. Before the tribunal, both the respondents
remained absent, and they were placed ex-parte.
3. The learned tribunal, on recording evidence of
the claimant/appellant, held that, the said accident had
taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of a
Maxi Cab driver and further held that, the claimant is
entitled for a global compensation of Rs.35,000/- in all
towards pain and agony, medical expenses and other
charges.
4. Evidently, in this case, though the claimant
asserts that, he has suffered fracture of his metacarpal
bone, he has not examined the doctor who has treated
NC: 2025:KHC:29236
HC-KAR
him. He has produced just a Wound Certificate. So far as
the accident is concerned, he has produced the FIR,
complaint, charge sheet, IMV report and spot mahazar.
The respondent No. 2 is not denying the said accident.
Being aggrieved by the findings of the tribunal, no
separate appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company,
perhaps considering the findings with regard to the rash
and negligent driving of the said Maxi Cab driver, owned
by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2.
Only based upon the Wound Certificate, the tribunal has
come to the conclusion that, the claimant is entitled for a
compensation of Rs.35,000/- with interest.
5. On perusal of the findings of the tribunal, it
shows that, this claimant has suffered fracture of his right
4th/5th metacarpals. This fact is not disputed by the
respondents. In view of the injuries so sustained by the
claimant, the tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards
pain and suffering and minimum medical expenses at
NC: 2025:KHC:29236
HC-KAR
Rs.10,000/- and also Rs.5,000/- towards traveling
expenses.
6. On perusal of the impugned judgment, as the
doctor was not examined by the tribunal to show the
actual injuries and disability alleged to have been
sustained by the claimant, I do not find any factual error
committed by the tribunal in awarding such compensation.
Therefore, it is just and proper to uphold the findings of
the tribunal with regard to the award of the compensation
at Rs.35,000/- in all, being a global compensation.
Though the counsel for the respondents submits that, the
compensation is on the higher side, but as the claimant
has sustained the fracture of his right 4th/5th metacarpals,
he must have suffered physically, mentally and financially.
Therefore, no interference is required in the impugned
judgment and award passed by the tribunal.
NC: 2025:KHC:29236
HC-KAR
7. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is dismissed, upholding the
award of compensation of Rs. 35,000/-
with interest at 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realization.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated
24.12.2020 passed in M.V.C.No.509/2015
by the III Additional District and Sessions
Judge and Member, Additional MACT,
Ramanagara, is hereby confirmed.
(iii) The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit
the compensation amount within 6 weeks
from the date of the judgment.
(iv) As the amount awarded is very meager, it
shall be released to the claimant/appellant
with due identification and
acknowledgment digitally.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
