KRISHNEGOWDA v. THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
MFA/795/2022 · 2025-09-23
Lalitha Kanneganti
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 39039 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 39039 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38598 MFA No. 795 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 795 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN:
KRISHNEGOWDA S/O SHIVANANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O B CHOLENAHALLI VILLAGE SHRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 1ST FLOOR, KRUTHIKA ARCADE N.R.CIRCLE, HOLENARSIPURA ROAD
Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38598 MFA No. 795 of 2022
HASSAN TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201
2.
SHIVALINGAMURTHY M.S., S/O SHIVANNA R/O MEGALAKOPPALU GUNGARAMALE, TIPTUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HOLEBASAPPA C BETSUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2- SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 12.11.2021 IN MVC NO.789/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN SITTING AT CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN, 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 SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38598 MFA No. 795 of 2022
ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.789/2019 dated 12.11.2021 by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hassan Sitting at Channarayapatna at Hassan, whereby the Trial Court had awarded the compensation of an amount of Rs.4,64,325/. The claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident. It is the case of the claimant that on 25.08.2018 at about 1.30 pm., at Malenahalli Village, the claimant and two others had been to the farm land of one Kumar in Tata Goods Auto to load the tender coconut and in the garden land the driver of said Goods Auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and as the land was wet, the said auto struck in the mud and therefore the claimant and other two persons got down from the auto and were standing behind the said auto, the driver of the goods auto reversed the auto without giving any signal and negligently had dashed against the claimant, due to which the claimant fell down and
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38598 MFA No. 795 of 2022
sustained grievous injures to his left leg and all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to the hospital wherein he took treatment for a period of 20 days as inpatient. Basing on the evidence, the Trial Court had awarded the compensation as per the table given below:
SL. No. Heads
Compensation Awarded
1. Pain and suffering : Rs. 50,000/-
2. Loss of prospects in life : Rs. 75,000/-
3. Medical expenses : Rs. 1,58,990/-
4. Loss of future income : Rs. 1,13,335/-
5. Diet, attendant and nourishment : Rs. 15,000/-
6. For future medical expenses : Rs. 25,000/-
7. Loss of income during laid up period : Rs. 27,000/-
TOTAL : Rs. 4,64,325/-
3. This Court had perused the grounds that are raised with regard to the liability and also the compensation that is awarded by the Trial Court.
In the considered opinion of this Court, there are no grounds to enhance the compensation and with regard to the liability also, the Trial Court had rightly held that the Insurance Company has sufficiently proved that the owner of the offending vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy and as such the Insurance
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38598 MFA No. 795 of 2022
Company is exonerated from liability and this Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Trial Court. 4. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is dismissed. i) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Trial court, along with certified copy of the
order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. ii) No costs. iii) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17