Sri Maruthi v. Sri Ramanaika

Karnataka HC21 Feb 2026MFA/6277/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

M.F.A.No.6277/2025(MV-I); Lok Adalat No.8079/2025; High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; conciliation order dated 21.02.2026; motor vehicle accident claim enhancement; S.173(1) MV Act; MVC No.1603/2023; MACT Mysuru; award dated 21.04.2025; New India Assurance Co. Ltd.; Joint Memo settlement; additional compensation Rs.50,000/-; interest 9% p.a. on default; claimant Maruthi; conciliators Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil and Smt. Archana K.M.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.50,000/- over the Tribunal award, payable by the Insurance Company in full and final settlement, deposited within six weeks (else 9% p.a. interest from default) and released to the appellant-claimant on proper identification; appeal disposed of in terms of Joint Memo with the Tribunal judgment modified accordingly. ¶¶31

Sri Maruthi Vs Sri Ramanaika — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant-claimant is entitled to enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in MVC No.1603/2023.

¶¶22

Court's answer

After prolonged negotiations the matter is settled by Joint Memo: the appellant-claimant agreed to receive and the respondent-Insurance Company agreed to pay a lumpsum of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the Claims Tribunal award, in full and final settlement of the claim.

¶¶27

Ratio / Principle

The Insurance Company is to deposit the settled amount before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of preparation of award, failing which it carries interest at 9% p.a. from the date of default till the date of deposit.

¶¶28

Key takeaways

The entire enhanced compensation of Rs.50,000/- is to be released in favour of the appellant-claimant on proper identification.ratio¶¶29
The Miscellaneous First Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo, and the Judgment and Order dated 21.04.2025 in MVC No.1603/2023 on the file of MACT, Mysuru, stands modified accordingly.ratio¶¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Lok Adalat conciliation (Lok Adalat No.8079/2025) before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru, in M.F.A.No.6277/2025(MV-I) filed under S.173(1) MV Act against the judgment and award dated 21.04.2025 in MVC No.1603/2023 (Prl. Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Mysuru) seeking enhancement of compensation. On a Joint Memo signed by counsel for the claimant and the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the matter was settled: the insurer agreed to pay an additional lumpsum of Rs.50,000/- over the Tribunal award in full and final settlement, to be deposited before the Tribunal within six weeks of preparation of the award, failing which it carries interest at 9% p.a. from the date of default till deposit; the entire enhanced amount is releasable to the appellant-claimant on proper identification. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo and the Tribunal's judgment and order dated 21.04.2025 stands modified accordingly.

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, BENGALURU BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

CONCILIATORS PRESENT:

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶7

¶8

SMT. ARCHANA K.M., MEMBER

¶9

M.F.A.No.6277/2025(MV-I)

¶10

(Lok Adalat No.8079/2025)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI. MARUTHI S/O HANUMANTHAPPA SHIDAGANAHALLI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT HIRESULIKERE THANDA, HIRESULIKERE VILLAGE, CHILAKUMNKI HOBLI, KOPPALA TALUK, KOPPALA DISTRICT - 583 237.

¶13

...APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. SYED ABDUL SABOOR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI. RAMANAIKA S/O KEMYANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT 20^TH WARD, KERE THANDA,

¶17

¶18

VENKAPURA, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI.

¶19

THE MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. NO.876/C, 2^ND FLOOR, LAKSHMIPURAM POLICE STATION, JLB ROAD, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU-570 004.

¶20

….RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. P. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.04.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO.1603/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MYSURU, SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR CONCILIATION BEFORE LOK ADALAT, THE FOLLOWING CONCILIATION ORDER IS PASSED:

¶24

CONCILIATION ORDER

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant is present. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Insurance Company along with its representative are present.

¶26

¶27

After prolonged negotiations, the matter is settled. A Joint Memo signed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant - claimant (being authorized by the appellant - claimant to sign) and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Insurance Company and its authorized Officer, is filed. The appellant - claimant has agreed to receive and the respondent - Insurance Company has agreed to pay a lumpsum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) in addition to what has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal, in full and final settlement of the claim.

¶28

The respondent - Insurance Company has agreed to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of preparation of award, failing which the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of default, till the date of deposit.

¶29

The Joint Memo is accepted. The entire enhanced compensation amount Rs.50,000/- shall be released in favour of the appellant – claimant, on proper identification.

¶30

¶31

This Miscellaneous First Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo. The Judgment and Order dated 21.04.2025 in MVC No.1603/2023 on the file of MACT, Mysuru, shall stand modified accordingly. Draw up the Award accordingly.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Sd/MEMBER

¶34

sac

Sri Maruthi v. Sri Ramanaika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Maruthi v. Sri Ramanaika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S. Fabric Pro

Ashwini Vs Sandya Srinivas

Smt B Dhanalakshmi Vs the Managing Director

Mahantheshwara S M Vs Smt. Shobha

Mahadevaprasad G Vs Shobha

Yashodhamma Vs Jagadisha R