- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7490-DB MFA No. 100288 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100288 OF 2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHRI. PUNDALIK KALLAPPA INCHANALKAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: 126, SHIVAJI GALLI, KURIHAL (K.H.), KURIHAL, TQ. AND DIST: BELAGAVI, PINCODE – 591 153. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SHOBHA H., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NITIN R.BOLABANDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. SANDEEP SHIVAJI LAD, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: TILE FITTING WORK, R/O: KEDNUR VILLAGE, PIN CODE – 591 153, TQ. AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., IFFCO TOWER, PLOT NO.3, SECTOR NO.29, GURGAON, HARYANA, PIN CODE: 122 001, …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUBHASH J.BADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN MVC NO.965/2016 DATED 02.08.2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T., BELAGAVI, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7490-DB MFA No. 100288 of 2018 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) This appeal is preferred by the appellant-petitioner assailing the judgment and award dated 02.08.2017 passed in MVC No.965/2016 on the file of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The appeal is filed seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. The facts giving rise to the claim petition are that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’), seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the grievous injuries sustained in a road traffic accident that occurred on 24.02.2016 at around 10:00 a.m. It is stated that the petitioner was proceeding from Belagavi to Kurihal on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/ER-7880, and when he reached near - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7490-DB MFA No. 100288 of 2018 Alataga Cross on the Kadoli–Belagavi road, another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/ET-2849, coming from Kedanur towards Belagavi, collided with his vehicle. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous fracture injuries. 3. After service of notice, respondent No.1, though represented by counsel, did not file any objections. Respondent No.2–the Insurance Company, however, filed its statement of objections denying the entire claim of the petitioner and contending that although the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/ET-2849 was covered under an insurance policy, the liability, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the said policy. 4. The petitioner examined 02 witnesses and marked 13 documents. Respondents marked 01 document as exhibit. 5. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,32,500/-. The Tribunal assessed the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.9,000/- per month and determined the permanent physical disability at 10%. Taking into account the nature of treatment undergone by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7490-DB MFA No. 100288 of 2018 petitioner, and apart from awarding compensation under the head of medical expenses, the Tribunal also awarded amount towards pain and suffering and other incidental heads. 6. Smt. Shobha H., learned counsel appearing for Sri Nitin R. Bolabandi, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in assessing the permanent disability at only 10%, despite the petitioner having suffered grievous fracture injuries. Learned counsel further submits that the disability ought to have been assessed at 25%. It is also submitted that the petitioner was treated as an inpatient for a period of 9 days and had incurred a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses however, the Tribunal has erroneously awarded only Rs.58,481/- under the said head. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner was working as a coolie and earning Rs.10,000/- per month, and therefore, the compensation awarded towards loss of future income is wholly inadequate and deserves to be enhanced. 6.1 Learned counsel further submits that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7490-DB MFA No. 100288 of 2018 rider of the offending vehicle, and that the appellant did not contribute to the occurrence of the accident in any manner. It is therefore submitted that the appellant is entitled to the entire compensation as claimed. 7. Sri Subhash J. Baddi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2–Insurance Company, submits that in the absence of any documentary evidence establishing the petitioner’s income, the Tribunal was justified in determining compensation based on the notional income. It is further submitted that, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and upon appreciation of the evidence of PW.2, the Tribunal rightly assessed the permanent physical disability at 10%. Learned counsel also contends that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the petitioner was also negligent in riding his motorcycle, and therefore, the Tribunal rightly held the petitioner entitled to only 50% of the total compensation. The compensation awarded under various other heads is also submitted to be just and proper. In the absence of any cogent evidence warranting interference, the judgment and award of the Tribunal do not call for any modification. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7490-DB MFA No. 100288 of 2018 8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the accident involving two motorcycles bearing registration Nos.KA-22/ER-7880 and KA-22/ET-2849 is not in dispute. The fact that the appellant sustained injuries in the said accident is also not in dispute. The present appeal is confined to the limited issue of enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9. Firstly, the petitioner has claimed a monthly income of Rs.10,000/- without producing any supporting documentary evidence. In the absence of such proof, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the notional income at Rs.9,000/- per month. There being no contrary evidence to establish a higher income, the assessment of notional income by the Tribunal does not warrant interference. Insofar as the assessment of disability is concerned, although the petitioner has suffered fracture injuries, the evidence on record does not indicate any functional disability impairing his ability to perform coolie work or any other occupation for his livelihood. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal's assessment of permanent physical disability at 10% is found to be appropriate - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7490-DB MFA No. 100288 of 2018 and does not call for interference. With regard to medical expenses, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.58,481/- based on the medical bills produced at Ex.P7, as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/-. The compensation awarded under other heads, considering that the petitioner was an inpatient for about 9 days, the nature of injuries sustained, and the possibility of future treatment, is also found to be just and reasonable. 10. This Court finds no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal requiring interference. 11. In that view of the matter, the appeal is meritless and accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31