[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Renukamma vs Fakkir Sab @ Fakkir Sab Koppal on 20 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3124
MFA No. 7233 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7233 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
RENUKAMMA,
W/O JAYADEVACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
HOTEL WORK,
R/O YALLAPURA VATARA,
BASAPURA, DAVANAGERE TOWN-577 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. FAKKIR SAB @ FAKKIR SAB KOPPAL,
S/O MOHAMMED MARDANI KOPPAL,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, DRIVER OF BUS
BEARING NO.KA-17/F-1389, BILL NO.3478,
R/O VEENA PANI SCHOOL ROAD,
Digitally signed
by NANDINI R 3RD CROSS, ANJANEYA EXTENSION,
Location: HIGH
NITUVALLI, DAVANAGERE-577 001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLER OFFICER,
KSRTC DAVANAGERE DIVISION,
DAVANAGERE-577 001.
3. THE CHAIRMAN,
KSRTC INTERNAL SECURITY FUND,
SARIGE BHAVAN, SHANTHINAGAR,
K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
V/O DATED 07.02.2020 NOTICE TO R-1 & R-2 IS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3124
MFA No. 7233 of 2017
HC-KAR
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 4.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.873/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, AND VIII MACT, DAVANGERE. PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and respondent No.3.
2. The short point that arise for consideration in this
appeal is 'whether the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal deserves to be enhanced?'
3. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal in
MVC.No.873/2015 dated 04.04.2017, the petitioner is
before this Court in appeal.
4. The fact that there was an accident involving the
vehicle driven by respondent No.1 and owned by
NC: 2026:KHC:3124
HC-KAR
respondent No.2-Corporation is not in dispute. The
accident occurred while the petitioner was crossing the
road at Vishweshwarayya Park. The petitioner had
sustained laceration over the cheek and eyelash, abrasion
below the nose and contusion of the right eye. It was
noticed that there was fracture of sphenoid bone and she
was shifted to Chigateri Hospital, Davanagere. The
Tribunal after assessing the evidence placed on record,
awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner.
5. Being aggrieved about the quantum of the
compensation amount, the petitioner is before this Court
in appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would submit that PW.2-the doctor who treated the
petitioner, has stated that there is 16% disability to the
petitioner and she is unable to do her daily activity and
there is headache. He submits that the compensation of
Rs.50,000/- would not be adequate in terms of the
NC: 2026:KHC:3124
HC-KAR
difficulties stated by her as well as through PW.2.
Therefore, he seeks enhancement of the compensation.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.3 submits and points out that except the
wound certificate and the disability certificate issued by
PW.2, there is nothing on record to show about the nature
of the injuries sustained, the period of treatment
undergone by the petitioner and the nature of the
treatment given to her. He submits that the hospital
records, including discharge summary which would have
depicted the period of inpatient treatment at Chigateri
Hospital are not produced by the petitioner. He also points
out that the medical bills are also not produced and
therefore, it is very difficult to accept the disability stated
by PW.2. Moreover, he points out that the disability do not
affect the functionality of the petitioner and therefore, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate and no
enhancement is permissible.
NC: 2026:KHC:3124
HC-KAR
8. A careful perusal of the records would reveal that
immediately after the accident, the petitioner went to the
Chigateri Hospital at Davangare and the wound certificate
issued by the Chigateri Hospital, Davanagere (Ex.P4)
would indicate that the petitioner had sustained the
injuries mentioned above and X-ray of the orbit was taken,
which showed fracture of lateral wall of the orbit i.e., the
sphenoid. It appears that the petitioner was treated
conservatively and this record do not mention the period
of inpatient treatment. Apart from Ex.P4, it is only an X-
ray film, which has been produced by the petitioner and no
medical records or bills or discharge summary are
produced. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention
of the appellant that the petitioner had taken any inpatient
treatment at Chigateri Hospital or any other hospital.
9. The testimony of PW.2 shows that the petitioner was
treated at Government Hospital, Davangere and then at
Bapuji Dental Hospital, Davangere. He says that there is
mal-united sphenoid bone at the orbital wall and since the
NC: 2026:KHC:3124
HC-KAR
petitioner stated that she has difficulty in doing her daily
activity and that there is headache, he has given the
disability certificate as per Ex.P8 mentioning the disability
to be 16%. It is not known to which aspect the disability of
16% is attributable. Either the testimony of PW.2 or the
Ex.P8 do not mention, to which difficulty or inability of the
petitioner, the said disability relates to. Therefore, it is not
possible for this Court also to say that there is any
functional disability to the petitioner. In the testimony of
PW.1, she states various difficulties, but these difficulties
are not stated by PW.2. With this kind of evidence
available on record, the Tribunal while deciding Issue No.2
comes to the conclusion that the claim of Rs.80,000/-
towards 'medical expenses' has not been substantiated by
the petitioner, it would be proper to award a global
compensation of Rs.50,000/-. It may be noted that to
enhance the compensation amount, there is no material
available on record. The injuries sustained by the
petitioner would indicate that there was one fracture and
NC: 2026:KHC:3124
HC-KAR
there being no medical bills, no inpatient record, it
appears that she only took out-patient treatment at the
Chigateri Hospital and went home. Therefore, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.50,000/- as a
global compensation appears to be proper and correct and
no interference is required in the same. Had the petitioner
produced sufficient material, at least to show the nature of
the treatment undergone by her and for how many days
she was inpatient, this Court would have appreciated in
the claim of the petitioner that she is entitled for higher
compensation.
10. In the absence of such material, the appeal is
bereft of any merits. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
NR/-
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
