- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5351 MFA No. 102562 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102562 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM, REPTD. BY, DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICES, 2ND FLOOR, ARIHANT PLAZA, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBLI. (INSURER OF VEHICLE) …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. S. JOSHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. YALLAPPA S/O. DUNDAPPA HITTALAMANI, AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. AMBADAGATTI, TQ: DIST: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM, (OWNER OF MAHINDRA GOODS RICKSHAW) 2. HUSENSAB S/O. HABIBSAB HONGAL, AGE 24 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. AMBADAGATTI, TQ: DIST: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SURESH P. HUDEDAGADDI, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT: 23.06.2014 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND ADDL. MACT, BAILHONGAL AT BAILHONGAL IN MVC NO.2661/2011 AND CALL FOR THE TRIBUNAL RECORDS AND HEAR THE PARTIES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5351 MFA No. 102562 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. This appeal is filed by the Insurer in MVC No.2661 of 2011 dated 23.06.2014 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. I refer the parties as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. It is the case of the claimant that on 06.06.2011, claimant was going as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-24/3986 and one Muthu @ mutturaj was riding the said motorcycle. They met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-24/6445 around 8:30 p.m., and due to the accident claimant had sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted to KLE Hospital, Belagavi and he had spent Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses. It is further contended that claimant - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5351 MFA No. 102562 of 2014 was coolie and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Due the injuries, he has been suffering permanent disability, which has affected his earning capacity. With these reasons, prayed to award compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement. Respondent No.1 admitted the accident but he has contended that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider and the said vehicle was not insured with the respondent No.2. Therefore if any compensation is to be paid, the same shall be recovered from the respondent No.2. 5. Respondent No.2 in the written statement denied all the contention of the claim petition. It is further contended that accident had not taken place by the involvement of goods vehicle therefore respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation. It is also contended that its liability is restricted to the terms and conditions of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5351 MFA No. 102562 of 2014 policy of insurance and holding of valid and effective driving licence by the driver of the said vehicle. 6. From the rival contention of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 7. Claimant to prove his case examined two witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked 20 documents as per Exs.P1 to P20. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW1 and got marked two documents as Exs.R1 and R2. 8. After hearing both the parties and appreciating the materials available on record, the Tribunal held that accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA- 24/6445 (for short, ‘the offending vehicle’) by its driver. 9. The Tribunal assessed the age of the claimant as 21 years, his income as Rs.5,000/- per month, applied multiplier as 18, assessed disability to the whole body as 20% and assessed loss of future earning capacity due to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5351 MFA No. 102562 of 2014 permanent disability and awarded the following amount of compensation: i. Pain and suffering : Rs.1,00,000.00 ii. Loss of amenities and future unhappiness : Rs. 40,000.00 iii. Medical expenses incurred : Rs.1,45,000.00 iv. Incidental expenses : Rs. 30,000.00 v. Loss of income during laid up and rest period : Rs. 30,000.00 vi. Loss of future income : Rs.3,24,000.00 vii. Future medical expenses : --- Total : Rs.6,69,000.00 10. The insurer challenged the said judgment and award dated 23.06.2014 on the ground of false implication of the offending vehicle in the accident. And also challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned advocates for both the sides. 12. The following questions arise for determination; “i) Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident had taken place due to the involvement of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5351 MFA No. 102562 of 2014 the goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA- 24/6445? ii) Whether the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation and interference in the said finding is required? iii) What order? 13. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is two days delay in lodging the complaint. Delay is not explained in Ex.P2. In Ex.P7 as well as Ex.R2 and R2a, it is mentioned that accident was between a two wheeler and a four wheeler on 06.06.2011. However offending vehicle is a three wheeler. In Ex.R2a, it is stated as “passenger vehicle”. Therefore there is no consistency in the identity of the vehicle involved in the accident. The FIR, Ex.P7 and Ex.R2a, creates serious doubt that above vehicle was falsely implicated in the accident. It also indicates that accident was not caused by the offending vehicle. This fact was not considered by the Tribunal. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submits that immediately after the accident, the claimant was unconscious and the persons who were traveling in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5351 MFA No. 102562 of 2014 the goods vehicle, called the ambulance and he was shifted to KLE Hospital, Belagavi for treatment. Ex.P7 reveals that he was unconscious, therefore whatever information given to the Hospital, is not by the claimant. Motorcycle Inspection Report reveals that the offending vehicle had been damaged due to the accident in question. There was no reason for the claimant to falsely implicate the offending vehicle. In this case, the claimant was admitted in Hospital from 06.06.2011 to 14.06.2011. Under the circumstances, falsely implication of the said vehicle by the claimant is not probable. Mere delay in the complaint does not mean that there is false implication of the vehicle. Looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, delay is probable and hence prays to reject the said contention of the insurer. 15. According to the contention of the claimant, accident had taken place on 06.06.2011, which is not in dispute. In Ex.R2, fact of the accident is stated in detail and said information appears to be not given by the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5351 MFA No. 102562 of 2014 claimant but one Husensab Habibsab Hongal, who is said to be friend of rider of the motorcycle. Therefore there is no chance to give explanation for delay in filing of the complaint. The investigating officer held detailed enquiry and submitted the charge sheet, against the driver of offending vehicle. 16. Claimant was examined as PW1 and in his detailed cross-examination by both the owner as well as the insurer, nothing was brought out to disbelieve his evidence regarding involvement of the vehicle or probability of contention of the insurer. 17. RW1 is not the eyewitness. He is an officer of the insurance company. In his evidence, he has stated that on the basis of the delay in filing the complaint as well inconsistency of description of the vehicle mentioned in the inpatient record, the insurance company has been contending that the said vehicle is falsely implicated. On 06.06.2011, when the claimant was admitted in the hospital as inpatient, it is mentioned that the claimant - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5351 MFA No. 102562 of 2014 sustained injury due to the accident between a two wheeler as well as a four wheeler. It is also mentioned therein that patient was unconscious, which indicates that the said information was not given by either the rider of the motorcycle or the claimant and hence much importance cannot be given to the said contents of the inpatient record of the Hospital. Similarly, in Ex.R2a, it is mentioned as “passenger vehicle”, that is also the case sheet of the Hospital. 18. Ex.P7 simply mentions as four wheeler and Ex.R2a it is mentioned as passenger vehicle. It appears that while making of the said entry in the records of the Hospital, claimant was unconscious. It indicates that no such information was given by the claimant. Considering the said facts, contention of the appellant/insurer in this regard is not tenable. 19. From the charge-sheet and enclosures, prima facie case was made out by the claimant about the involvement of the said vehicle in the accident. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5351 MFA No. 102562 of 2014 20. The Tribunal has considered the case properly and rightly held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-24/6445. The said view is based on the evidence available on record therefore there is no reason to hold that the said evidence is incorrect. Accordingly I answer point No.1 in the negative. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount of compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of income during laid period are on much higher side. He further submits that the Tribunal has taken income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/- adding 50% of the said income as future prospects though claimant has sustained 20% of the permanent disability as assessed by the Tribunal. Hence adding 50% of income towards future prospects is incorrect. Therefore, prays to re-calculate the compensation amount and reduce the award on the said head. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5351 MFA No. 102562 of 2014 22. Looking to the nature of injury sustained, treatment taken as inpatient for 40 days and the formalities mentioned in the discharge summary given by the treated doctor as well as PW2, the amount of compensation awarded under the said heads are not on higher side; therefore re-considerations of the amount of compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering, the loss of amenities and loss of income during laid up period are not required. 23. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal erred in adding 50% of the income towards future prospects while assessing compensation under loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability. The future prospects could be considered in case of death or in cases wherein permanent disability affecting earning capacity of a victim of an accident is higher side i.e., between 75 to 100% and not in the cases of fractures of both the bones of right and left leg and right shoulder. Therefore the said calculation is - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5351 MFA No. 102562 of 2014 erroneous. It is also pertinent to note that the Tribunal has taken income as Rs.5,000/- per month. According to the chart prepared by the KSLSA, it should have taken it as Rs.6,000/- per month. It is not in dispute that appropriate multiplier would be 18 since claimant is aged about 21 years. Considering the above said figures, loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability is to be re-assessed. That amounts to Rs.2,59,200/- (Rs.6000/- x 12 x 18 x 20%). The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,24,000/- under the said head, therefore, the amount of Rs.64,800/- needs to be deducted in total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. To that extent, the award passed by the Tribunal needs interference. 24. For the aforesaid discussions, question No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. 25. Point No.3 for the reasons discussed above, I pass the following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5351 MFA No. 102562 of 2014 ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 23.06.2014 passed in MVC No.2661 of 2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal is modified. iii. The claimant is entitled for Rs.6,04,200/- as against Rs.6,69,000/- awarded by the Tribunal (that is less than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. iv. Remaining orders passed by the Tribunal is not disturbed. v. Send back the TCR along with copy this order to the Tribunal. vi. Whatever amount deposited by the appellant- insurer shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE KGK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5