- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13404 MFA No. 104079 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104079 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. PRAVEEN S/O SOMASHEKHARAYYA PATADAYYANMATH, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: JAYADEV NAGAR, HAVERI-581110. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. N P VIVEKMEHTA, ADV) AND: 1. BASANAGOUDA S/O SIDDAPPA DALAWAI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRI & BUSINESS, R/O: GONDI, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104. 2. MAHABOOBSAB HASANSAB DODDAMANI AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: MEDICAL PRACTITIONER, R/O: ASHWINI NAGAR, 3RD CROSS, HAVERI-581110. 3. BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MOKTALI BUILDING, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.R. MANE, ADV FOR R3, NOTICE TO R1 & R2 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.176/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT AND PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HAVERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13404 MFA No. 104079 of 2017 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and liability passed in MVC No.176/2014 dated 17.08.2017 by the MACT and learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Haveri. (for short, 'the Tribunal'). 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. On 19.09.2012, the petitioner was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/K-5186 when he came near the spot of accident, at that time, Maruti 800 Car bearing registration No.KA-27/M-3197, driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said motorcycle, as a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13404 MFA No. 104079 of 2017 result, the petitioner has sustained injuries. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation on the account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. 4. Notice was issued to the owner and the driver of Maruti Car in question. Despite the service of notice, they remained unrepresented and placed ex parte. 5. The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner himself. Hence, there is a contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Further, it is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of accident. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13404 MFA No. 104079 of 2017 6. The tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties framed the relevant issues. 7. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1 and examined a doctor as PW.2 and got marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to 11. 8. On the other hand, the respondents did not produce any oral and documentary evidence. 9. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs and awarded compensation of Rs.52,500/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. and held that the petitioner is entitle to recover 50% of the compensation amount with accrued interest from respondent Nos.1 and 3 jointly and severally and also held that the petitioner has contributed for the cause of accident and the petitioner is entitle for only 50% of the compensation amount awarded. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13404 MFA No. 104079 of 2017 10. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri. Ravindra R Mane for the insurance company. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side. She also submits that the petitioner, to prove that he has suffered permanent disability, examined the doctor as PW.2 and the tribunal has not considered the disability assessed by the doctor. Hence, she prays to allow the appeal. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that even after the accident, the petitioner continued in service and the petitioner is not entitle for compensation under the heads of loss of future earning. The compensation awarded by the tribunal is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13404 MFA No. 104079 of 2017 just and proper. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 14. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 15. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding quantum of compensation. 16. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of accident and the petitioner having suffered injuries. The petitioner produced the charge sheet marked as Ex.P5, which discloses that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle i.e., the petitioner and the driver of the Maruti Car in question. Thus, both of them have contributed for the cause of accident. There is contributory negligence on the part of both rider as well as the driver of the car in question. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13404 MFA No. 104079 of 2017 17. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the liability on both the rider as well as driver of the offending car and the motorcycle. I do not find any error in fastening the liability jointly and severally. 18. The petitioner to prove that the petitioner has suffered disability, examined a doctor as PW.2. The doctor has opined that the petitioner has suffered disability of 43% to the right lower limb and the Tribunal awarded a global compensation to the petitioner. 19. It is not in dispute that even after the accident, the petitioner continued in service. The petitioner is not entitle for compensation under the heads of loss of future income. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitle for global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as the rider/the petitioner and the driver of the Maruti Car in question have jointly contributed for the cause of accident and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13404 MFA No. 104079 of 2017 the liability shall be joint and several and the Tribunal was justified in holding the driver of the offending car liable to pay 50% towards the negligence driving and causing an accident. Further, the Tribunal was justified in holding 50% liability on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner can claim only 50% of the compensation amount from respondent No.3- insurance company. 20. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER I. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. II. The judgment and award passed by the tribunal is hereby modified. III. The petitioner is entitle for global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as against Rs.52,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13404 MFA No. 104079 of 2017 IV. Respondent No.3 is liable to pay 50% of the compensation i.e., Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner with accrued interest within 8 weeks from the date of copy of receipt of this judgment. V. The Office is directed to transmit the TCRs and the amount in deposit, if any, to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20