- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21241 MFA No. 3522 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3522 OF 2025 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. SRI ARUNA I B S/O. BAKKESH K.M. AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O. KODAGANUR VILLAGE, MAYAKONDA HOBALI - 577 534 DAVANGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH V B,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI KUMAR C S/O. LATE CHANDRA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/A. DOOR NO.3993/38, 21ST MAIN, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, KUVEMPU BADAVANE MCC B-BLOCK, DAVANAGERE-577 004. 2. SRI. KUSHAL P RATHOD, S/O. C. KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/A. DOOR NO.3993/38, 21ST MAIN, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA KUVEMPU BADAVANE MCC B-BLOCK, DAVANAGERE-577 004. Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21241 MFA No. 3522 of 2025 3. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KUVEMPU BADAVANE, KB-EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE-577 002 REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER 4. SRI. AJAY M.J. S/O. JAYAPPA M, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, KODAGANUR VILLAGE, MAYAKONDA HOBLI - 577534 DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT 5. MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., R/A. 1904/1, 12TH CROSS, SHREE RAKSHA, SIDDAVERAPPA BADAVANE, DAVANAGERE - 577 004. REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B C SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 V/K NOT FILED, SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N A, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R5 V/K NOT FILED, V/O DTD. 17.4.2026, NOTICE TO R1, R2 AND R4 D/W.) MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.24.02.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO.164/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-VI, DAVANAGERE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21241 MFA No. 3522 of 2025 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 24.02.2025 passed in MVC No.164/2022, by the Court of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl.MACT-VI, Davangere, for enhancing the compensation. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.3 and learned counsel for the appellant. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, Sri. Aruna I B, met with an accident on 05.09.2021 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- along with interest towards injuries sustained by him. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21241 MFA No. 3522 of 2025 Tribunal considering the evidence on record granted compensation of ₹50,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount in the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred in which he mainly contended that being an Engineering student, the appellant is doing agriculture and earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. but the Tribunal has not considered this aspect. The appellant has sustained grievous injuries and hospitalized for 15 days to take treatment. But the Tribunal has erred in considering the nature of injuries sustained and period of hospitalization. Lastly, he contended that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under other heads like pain and suffering, food, nourishment and attendant charges, etc., and requests for grant of compensation under the said heads. 4. On contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the appellant has not examined the doctor and therefore the Tribunal - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21241 MFA No. 3522 of 2025 has rightly considered the nature of injuries sustained and granted reasonable amount of compensation and it is to be confirmed. 5. The perusal of wound certificate under Ex.P7 shows that the appellant sustained wound over left foot, inability to move his toe, abrasion over lumbar spine region, CLW over left foot, swelling over right ankle region. MDCT brain report is normal and X-ray of pelvis, both hips, chest, right ankle reports are normal and the operation is tendon repair to left foot. It is stated that the injury is grievous in nature and the appellant has not filed any bills to show that he incurred medical expenses but simply stated that he is hospitalized for 5 days. Though the injury previously mentioned, it is not a fracture injury. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered all the aspects and granted reasonable compensation to the appellant and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21241 MFA No. 3522 of 2025 6. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER a. The appeal stands dismissed. b. The judgment and award dated 24.02.2025 passed in MVC No.164/2022 by the Court of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT-VI, Davangere is hereby confirmed. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15