- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886 MFA No. 102575 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100873 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102575 OF 2015 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100873 OF 2015 IN MFA NO.102575/2015 BETWEEN: MAHARUDRAPPA S/O. VEERAPPA HULAGERI, AGE:32 YEARS, OCC:MASON (GOUNDI), R/O: NAREGAL, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG. NOW R/O RAJIVGANDHINAGAR GADAG. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.DEEPAK MAGANUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VEERANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA KOTABAL, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: NEAR OLD BUS-STAND, NAREGAL, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG. 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, GADAG BRANCH OFFICE, RENUKA ARCADE, STATION ROAD, GADAG. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S K KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.12.2014, PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT GADAG, IN MVC NO.10/2011, AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886 MFA No. 102575 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100873 of 2015 IN MFA NO.100873/2015 BETWEEN: NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER GADAG BRANCH, OFF: RENUKA ARCADE, STATION ROAD, GADAG NOW REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, II FLOOR, ARIHANT PLAZA, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALI – 580023. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MAHARUDRAPPA S/O. VEERAPPA HULAGERI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: MASON (GOUNDI), R/O. NAREGAL TQ: RON, NOW R/AT RAJIVGANDHINAGAR, GADAG. 2. VEERANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA KOTABAL, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. NEAR OLD BUS-STAND, NAREGAL, TQ: RON DIST: GADAG (OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING REG NO.KA 26/TA-976) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEEPAK S. MAGANUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SRVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.12.2014 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, GADAD, IN MVC NO.10/2011, WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886 MFA No. 102575 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100873 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT These appeals arise out of the same judgment and award dated 17.12.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.10/2011 by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, and M.A.C.T., Gadag. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows: On 12.11.2010 at about 5.30 p.m., the petitioner and one Ishwaragouda were proceeding on Naregal-Dyampur road. At Nagarkeri, a tractor engine bearing registration No.KA-26/TA-976 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, at a high speed and dashed to the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and filed a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 3. The owner of the tractor filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886 MFA No. 102575 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100873 of 2015 petition and contended that the accident had occurred due to the negligent act of the petitioner. It is also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. It is further contended that the tractor is insured with the Insurance Company and the policy was in force as of the date of the accident. Hence, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the offending vehicle. 4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. There is a breach of policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886 MFA No. 102575 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100873 of 2015 6. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined the doctor through the Court Commissioner as PW-2 and marked 29 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-29. Conversely, neither the owner nor the officer of the Insurance Company has entered the witness box, but the owner of the offending vehicle marked 3 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-3 with consent, and the Insurance Company marked the policy as Ex.R-4. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 17.12.2014 and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,17,150/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit and held that the owner and Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount. 8. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, preferred the appeal in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886 MFA No. 102575 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100873 of 2015 M.F.A.No.100873/2015 and the petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, preferred the appeal in M.F.A. No.102575/2015. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the alleged offending vehicle has been falsely implicated. He also submits that the petitioner, colluding with the Police, filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. He also submits that there was a delay in lodging the complaint. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner. 11. Per contra, counsel for the petitioner submits that the Police, after investigation filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. Neither the driver nor the Insurance Company have challenged the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886 MFA No. 102575 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100873 of 2015 charge sheet. Thus, the Tribunal, considering the charge sheet, has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and rightly fastened the liability jointly and severally on the owner and the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the petitioner and to dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. 12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The points that would arise for consideration are regarding the liability and quantum of compensation. Regarding liability: 14. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the petitioner having sustained injuries in the road traffic accident. The petitioner, to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886 MFA No. 102575 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100873 of 2015 the driver of the offending vehicle, produced a charge sheet marked as Ex.P-3, which is filed against the driver of the Tractor. 15. The Insurance Company has taken a specific defence that there was a delay in lodging the complaint. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and others1 has held that the delay in lodging the First Information Report cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. It has further held that in Indian conditions, it is not expected that a person could run to rush to the Police Station after the accident, and that the treatment of the victim is given priority rather than lodging the First Information Report. 16. Considering the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi referred to supra, the Tribunal was justified in recording its finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and rightly fastened the 1 (2011) 4 SCC 693 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886 MFA No. 102575 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100873 of 2015 liability on the owner and the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally. In view of the same, the point regarding liability is answered accordingly. Regarding quantum of compensation: 17. Though, the petitioner has contended that he was a mason earning Rs.200/- per day, to prove his income, he has not produced any income proof. In the absence of income proof, the income has to be assessed as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident occurred in 2010. As per the schedule, the notional income is to be assessed at Rs.5,500/- p.m. The petitioner, to prove his disability, examined the doctor as PW-2, who has deposed that he examined the petitioner clinically and radiologically and issued the disability certificate marked as Ex.P-7. He further deposed that the petitioner has suffered 45% disability, however in the cross-examination, it is stated that the petitioner has sustained the disability to the extent of 18% to 20% to a particular limb and the Tribunal has considered - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886 MFA No. 102575 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100873 of 2015 the disability at 5% which is on the lower side. Considering the evidence of PW-2, this Court re-assesses the permanent disability of the petitioner at 10% to the whole body. The petitioner was aged 28 years old as of the date of the accident, and the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 17 to the age group of the petitioner. Accordingly, the loss of future earning capacity of the petitioner is worked out as follows: Rs.5,500 x 12 x 17 x 10% = 1,12,200/- 18. Considering the entire evidence on record, this Court reassesses the compensation under the following heads: Sl.No. HEADS AMOUNT 1. Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.29,250/- 3. Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/- 4. Special diet, conveyance and incidental charges Rs.10,000/- 5. Loss of earning during laid up period Rs.16,500/- 6. Loss of future earning capacity Rs.1,12,200/- Total Rs.2,27,950/- Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.1,17,150/- Enhanced compensation Rs.1,10,800/- - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886 MFA No. 102575 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100873 of 2015 19. Thus, in all, the claimant/petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,27,950/- as against Rs.1,17,150/- awarded by the tribunal i.e., to an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,10,800/-. In view of the same, the point regarding quantum is answered accordingly. 20. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) M.F.A.No.100873/2015 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. (ii) M.F.A.No.102575/2015 filed by the petitioner is allowed in part. (iii) The judgment and award dated 17.12.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.10/2011 by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, and M.A.C.T., Gadag is modified. (iv) The petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,10,800/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886 MFA No. 102575 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100873 of 2015 (v) Respondents No.1 and 2 i.e., the owner and the insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with accrued interest to the petitioner. (vi) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (vii) The office is directed to transmit the records and the amount in deposit to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28