- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14968 MFA No. 102076 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102076 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: IRANNA @ IRAPPA S/O. GOPALAPPA @ GULAPPA BISTANNAVAR @ CHANNAPPANNAVAR, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/COOLIE, R/O. BENAKATTI, TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI BHIMARADDI S/O. SHIVARADDI MALLUR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. CHIKKUMBI, TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14968 MFA No. 102076 of 2015 (OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING REG.NO.KA-24/H-1701) 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM, THROUGH THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., IST FLOOR, APMC YARD, P.B. NO.24, SAUNDATTI, BELAGAVI-591126. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES CLAIMS ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN M.V.C.NO.2591/2012 DATED 22.04.2015 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAUNDATTI UNDER ALL PERMISSIBLE HEADS. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14968 MFA No. 102076 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Ms.Shaila Bellikatti, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Sri S.K.Kayakamath, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saundatti, in MVC 2591 of 2012 dated 22.04.2015. This is a claimant's appeal. 3. The appellant, projecting that he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 24.01.2012 claimed compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- in total from respondent No.1 who is the owner of the offending motorcycle and respondent No.2 who is the insurer. The tribunal dismissing the claim petition as against respondent No.2/Insurance Company, fastened liability against respondent No.1/insured. 4. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appeal is filed on two grounds. Firstly - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14968 MFA No. 102076 of 2015 that respondent No.2 is equally liable to pay compensation and secondly that the compensation granted is grossly low. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by all the evidence produced, the appellant established that the accident occurred on 24.01.2012 and for the injuries sustained, the appellant took treatment. Learned counsel submits that there is no dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with the second respondent and that the policy stood in force by the relevant time of accident. Learned counsel submits that basing on a single typographical error in the medical record, the tribunal held that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation which is improper. Learned counsel also states that the appellant by doing coolie work was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by the date of accident. However, the tribunal took the national income as Rs.4,500/- per month and awarded very meagre sum as compensation. 6. The submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the tribunal exhibited contradictory views in the impugned order however the finding given by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14968 MFA No. 102076 of 2015 tribunal exonerating the liability of the insurance company is valid and therefore the appeal is not maintainable. 7. At para 12 of the impugned order, the tribunal gave a clear and categorical finding that the appellant has proved that the accident occurred on 24.01.2012. Basing on the contents of Ex.P10-Discharge Summary, which goes to show that the appellant was admitted to hospital on 28.01.2012, while the accident occurred on 24.01.2012 and also basing on Ex.P15-Case Sheet, which discloses the date of accident as 24.01.2014, the tribunal held that the claim of the appellant against the insurance company appears to be a mala fide one. However the tribunal finally held that the owner is liable to pay compensation. The tribunal also gave a categorical finding that the policy stood in force as on the date of accident. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, if the claim is false, the claim petition should have been dismissed even against the insured, who is the owner of the offending vehicle. Only because the insured did not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14968 MFA No. 102076 of 2015 contest the matter, he cannot be fastened with liability basing on a false claim. 8. In the case on hand, the appellant succeeded in establishing the date of accident as observed by the tribunal itself while deciding issue No.1. Though as rightly contented by learned counsel for respondent No.2, there is discrepancy with regard to the date of admission to hospital, however the other evidence which is cogent and convincing including the evidence of PW2 and PW3 establishes the nature of injury sustained and the treatment taken. The tribunal appreciating the evidence of PW2 and PW3 took the disability in respect of whole body as 12%. Also the tribunal appreciating the contents of Ex.P.11-Disability Certificate held that the appellant is entitled to compensation towards ‘loss of future earnings’. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that respondent No.2/Insurance Company is equally liable to answer the claim of the appellant and to pay compensation to the extent awarded. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14968 MFA No. 102076 of 2015 9. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded, the tribunal through the impugned order granted a sum of Rs.18,000 towards ‘pain and suffering’, Rs.2,400/- towards ‘attendant charges’, Rs.4,500/- towards ‘food and nutrition’, Rs.58,079/- towards ‘medical expenses’, Rs.3,000/- towards ‘transportation charges’ and Rs.1,03,680/- towards ‘loss of future earnings’. However, as rightly contented by learned counsel for the appellant, the tribunal failed to award any sum as compensation towards ‘loss of earnings during laid up period’ and towards ‘loss of amenities in life’. Also as rightly projected, the sum awarded as compensation under all heads except ‘medical expenses’ is on lower side. Subjecting the evidence produced to scrutiny, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- in addition to the sum that is awarded by the tribunal. The enhanced sum covers the deficit of compensation awarded towards ‘pain and suffering’, ‘attendant charges’, ‘food and nutrition’, ‘for transportation’ and ‘loss of future earnings’. Also the enhanced sum covers ‘loss of earnings during laid up period’ and ‘loss of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14968 MFA No. 102076 of 2015 amenities in life’. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The compensation that is granted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saundatti, through orders in MVC 2591 of 2012 dated 22.04.2015 is enhanced by Rs.70,000/-. (iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. (iv) Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount awarded as compensation to the appellant. (v) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire sum that is awarded as compensation within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. (vi) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE EM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29