Dismissed¶43

Kumari N E Jeevitha v. Mr Ganesh B v

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2026MFA/8046/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Enhancement of motor accident compensation refused; loss of future earnings denied where disability percentage unsupported by certificate or examining witness; Ex.P9 outpatient record; three-day inpatient treatment; adequacy of Tribunal's head-wise award; MACT Kodagu/Madikeri; MVC No.57/2020; United India Insurance (R2, liability fixed); New India Assurance (R4); S.173(1) MV Act; Karnataka High Court MFA No.8046 of 2022 (MV-I); Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; no enhancement of compensation, appeal dismissed. ¶43

Kumari N E Jeevitha Vs Mr Ganesh B v — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:6208 MFA No. 8046 of 2022

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8046 OF 2022(MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KUMARI N. E. JEEVITHA, D/O ESHWARA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, NEAR GOWDA SAMAJA, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. AKASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJARAMA S.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MR GANESH B. V., S/O VISHWANATHA B T, MAJOR, R/AT KATTEMADU VILLAGE AND POST, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571201.

¶14

THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD., UPSTAIR UNION BANK, GANAPATHI STREET,

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6208 MFA No. 8046 of 2022

HC-KAR

MADIKERI CITY,

KODAGU-571201.

MR ESHWARA N. V., S/O VENKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NEAR GOWDA SAMAJA, MADIKERI CITY, KODAGU DISTRICT-571201.

¶20

THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., SRI LAKSHMI COMPLEX, COLLEGE ROAD, MADIKERI CITY, KODAGU-571201

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. H.C. BETSUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. HARINI SHIVANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R1 AND R3- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.08.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.57/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND M.A.C.T., KODAGU, MADIKERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:6208 MFA No. 8046 of 2022

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

Heard Sri.Akash, who is representing Sri.Rajarama S., learned counsel on record for the appellant as well as Sri.H.C.Betsur, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Both the learned counsel appears physically before this Court. Also heard Ms.Harini Shivananda, learned counsel for respondent No.4, who appears through video conference.

¶31

Projecting that she is entitled to a higher sum as compensation, the claimant in MVC No.57/2020, which stood pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kodugu at Madikeri and was disposed of through order dated 01.08.2022, presented the present appeal.

¶32

Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is left with disability of 15% in respect of whole body, but the tribunal has not granted any compensation towards loss of future earnings and aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6208 MFA No. 8046 of 2022

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Vehemently opposing the submission thus made, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the appellant neither produced the disability certificate nor examined any person who assessed the disability. Learned

¶36

counsel states that the appellant produced Ex.P9 - outpatient record where the disability is mentioned as 15%. Learned counsel contends that it is not known who assessed the disability and on what basis. Learned counsel further submits that exorbitant amount is granted as compensation under each head and thus appeal is not maintainable.

¶37

The submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent No.4 is that liability is fixed upon respondent No.2 only.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellant fairly admits that neither the disability certificate is produced nor any evidence is produced to show that the disability in respect of whole body is 15% as contended by the appellant.

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6208 MFA No. 8046 of 2022

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

The tribunal granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/under the head of pain and suffering, Rs.13,718/- towards medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards travelling expenses, Rs.50,000 towards future treatment, Rs.2,00,000/towards mental agony and Rs.25,000/- towards attendant, food and nourishment expenses. Appellant took treatment as inpatient only for a period of three days. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the period of treatment taken, this Court is of the view that the amount granted as compensation by the tribunal under each head is highly justifiable and thereby there are no grounds for further enhancement. Therefore, this Court ultimately holds that the appeal lacks merits. Hence, the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The appeal stands dismissed.

¶44

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶45

AP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Kumari N E Jeevitha v. Mr Ganesh B v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari N E Jeevitha v. Mr Ganesh B v

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

Sri Venkatesh C T Vs Smt Yogeshwari J

M Mohammad Vs Mohammed Nawaz

Hajira Kouser Vs Ashiff Ahamed

Mr Karthik T P Vs Smt Achala P

Puttaraju Vs Nagaraju

G M Yogsh Gowda Vs Future General India Insurance Company Limited