- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10612 MFA No. 24492 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24492 OF 2012 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHRI. TIMAPPA S/O SUBRAYA SHERUGAR @ BAANDI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE & AGRICULTURE, R/O. MARUKERI, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADV) AND: 1. SHRI. RAMESH S/O CHANNAYYA NAIK AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF TEMPO, R/O. NEERKULIMANE, HADEEN, BELKE, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KARWAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S ARANI, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:16.03.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.08/2011 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, ADDL. MACT AT HONAVAR, ITINERARY COURT AT BHATKAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.04 11:39:10 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10612 MFA No. 24492 of 2012 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act, 1988” for short) by the appellant-claimant, challenging the judgment and award dated 16.03.2012 passed in MVC No.8/2011 by the Additional MACT, Honnavar. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on the rankings before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: 4. On 23.05.2010, the petitioner and others were travelling in a Tempo bearing Reg.No.KA-47/1502 from Gangolli towards Bhatkal. The driver of the said Tempo was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the vehicle went out of the road and turned turtle. Due to the impact, the petitioner and others - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10612 MFA No. 24492 of 2012 sustained the grievous injuries. Thus, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioner spent a huge amount towards medical expenses. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. 5. Notice was issued to respondent No.1/owner before the Tribunal. Despite service of a notice, respondent No.1 remained absent, and was placed ex-parte. 6. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, except admitting that, the vehicle was insured with it. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10612 MFA No. 24492 of 2012 to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2- Insurance Company. 7. The other inmates also filed claim petitions before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal clubbed all the claim petitions. Based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the separate issues. 8. The petitioner, in MVC No.8/2011, to substantiate his case, examined himself as P.W.2, examined the doctor as P.W.7, and marked the documents. On the other hand, respondent No.2- Insurance Company did not lead any oral evidence, however, only Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.R1, with the consent. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 16.03.2012and awarded compensation of Rs.1,58,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realisation. It is held that the owner and the Insurance company are - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10612 MFA No. 24492 of 2012 jointly and severally, to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner. 9. The petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.8/2011, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for Insurance Company. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has sustained the grievous injuries. The petitioner examined the doctor as P.W.7, and he opined that the petitioner has sustained a permanent disability to an extent of 22%. However, the Tribunal has taken the disability at 7%, which is on the lower side. He submits that the compensation awarded under the other heads is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company, supports the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10612 MFA No. 24492 of 2012 impugned judgment, and award passed by the Tribunal. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, and do not call for any interference by this court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. I have perused the records, and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The point, that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation. Reg. Quantum of compensation: 15. There is no dispute that the petitioner and other inmates were travelling in the offending vehicle on the date of the accident. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioner has produced the charge sheet marked as Ex.P4. From the perusal of Ex.P4, it discloses that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10612 MFA No. 24492 of 2012 16. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is contended that the petitioner was working as a coolie, and used to earn Rs.5,000/- p.m. Due to the injuries he sustained in the road traffic accident, he could not attend to his work for more than six months. To prove his income, the petitioner has not produced any income proof. However, the Tribunal has taken Rs.4,000/- p.m., which is on the lower side. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal should have taken the notional income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident occurred in 2010, and the notional income of the petitioner is taken at Rs.5,500/- p.m. The petitioner was aged 40 years old as of the date of the accident. In view of the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others1, 25% of the future prospects is to be added to the said amount, i.e., Rs.5,500/-+1,375/-(25%)=6,875/-. 1 (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10612 MFA No. 24492 of 2012 Thus, this court reassess the notional income at Rs.6,875/- p.m. To prove the disability, the petitioner examined the doctor as P.W.7. He opined that the petitioner has sustained disability to the extent of 22%, i.e., 14% towards the right lower limb, and 8% towards the left lower limb. Thus, the Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability to the whole body at 7%. Considering the evidence of the doctor, and the medical records, this court is of the opinion that the percentage of disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. This court re-asses the permanent disability to the whole body at 10%. 17. Thus, this court on re-assessment of the entire evidence on record, awards the following compensation : Compensation awarded in Rs. Sl. No. Heads of compensation By the Tribunal By this Court 1 Towards pain and agony 40,000/- 50,000/- 2 Medical treatment 40,460/- 40,460/- 3 Towards conveyance, food nourishment and attendant charges 12,000/- 30,000/- 4 Loss of income during the 12,000/- 20,625/- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10612 MFA No. 24492 of 2012 laid up period (Rs.6,875 x 3) 5 Loss of future earning due to permanent disability 50,400/- 1,23,750/- (Rs.6,875/- x12x15x10%) 6 Future medical expenses 5,000/- 10,000/- 7 Loss of amenities -- 25,000/- Total : 1,57,860/- rounded off to 1,58,000/- 2,99,835/- Compensation enhanced by: 1,41,835/- 18. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified. (iii) The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,99,835/- as against Rs.1,58,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation is Rs.1,41,835/-. (iv) The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,41,835/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation of the amount. (v) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10612 MFA No. 24492 of 2012 accrued interest within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (vi) The Tribunal records, and the amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. SD/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3