- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5473 MFA No. 101957 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MFA NO. 101957 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: RAJA @ RAJAPPA S/O. HARIJANA DODDA MARENNA, AGE 31 YEARS, OCC: LORRY DRIVER, R/O. HARAGINADONI VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK & DISTRICT. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. M. AMAREGOUDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHANNABASAVANA GOUDA S/O. BASUVARAJ GOUDA, AGE 57 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF THE LORRY, R/O. BELAGAL VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK & DIST. 2. YALLAPPA S/O. DODDA HANUMANTHAPPA, AGE 42 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY, R/O.250 BANAKAR ONI, BELAGAL VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK & DIST. 3. THE MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BALLARI. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADV. FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 & R2 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.04.2016 PASSED BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL-II, BALLARI IN M.V.C NO.853/2014 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY RS.14,15,000/- 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:5473 MFA No. 101957 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 2. This is a claimant’s appeal against the judgment and award dated 26th April 2016, passed in MVC No.853/2014 by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-II, Ballari (for short “the Tribunal”) seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, on 14.02.2024, the petitioner met with an accident near Belagal Bypass Road, Ballari, due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-34/C-2448 by its driver. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries. Initially, he had taken treatment in VIMS Hospital, Ballari and was later - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5473 MFA No. 101957 of 2016 shifted to St. Mary’s Hospital, Ballari for higher treatment, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient for a period of 20 days. Subsequently, he was moved to Nisarga Hospital, Ballari and took treatment as an inpatient for a period of 15 days. After discharge from the hospital, he continued his treatment with private Doctors and incurred medical and other incidental expenses amounting to more than Rs.2,00,000/-. 5. It is further contended that, the claimant was aged about 29 years at the time of accident. He was working as a driver of the lorry and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability, which has affected his earning capacity. In the light of these circumstances, he has prayed to an award of compensation in a sum of Rs.16,40,000/-. 6. Respondent No.2 denied the contents of the claim petition. He further contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5473 MFA No. 101957 of 2016 the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay the compensation. The petition is also bad for non- joinder of necessary parties, and the liability of respondent No.2 is restricted to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, provided the driver of the offending vehicle holding valid and effective driving licence to drive such a class of vehicle. With these reasons prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. The Tribunal framed necessary issues for its consideration, which reads as follows: 1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 14.02.2014 at about 5.30 p.m., when he was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing reg.No.KA-35/J-6632 and when he reached near Bypass cross, Belagal road, Ballari, at that time one Lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-34/C-2448 driven by the respondent No.1 in the great speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and dashed to the petitioner’s motorcycle and due to it, the petitioner sustained injuries? - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5473 MFA No. 101957 of 2016 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as prayed by him from the respondents? 3. What order or award? 8. The claimant to prove his case examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and marked 17 documents as per Exs.P1 to P17 then closed his evidence. Respondents have not lead oral and documentary evidence. 9. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, awarded a global compensation of Rs.22,095/- and directed respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pay the compensation jointly and severally. 10. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued in line with the grounds of the appeal memo. He further contended that the Tribunal had not considered the evidence of PW2 and the disability certificate given by him. The said finding of the Tribunal is erroneous. The claimant - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5473 MFA No. 101957 of 2016 has been suffering from permanent disability to an extent of 35% to 40% to the whole body. His earning was Rs.10,000/- per month by working as a driver. Therefore, he prayed to award compensation towards loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability. He also submits that the global compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and prayed to enhance the compensation. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that according to the medical evidence i.e., wound certificate issued by the Doctor, who initially treated the claimant, there are only two simple injuries. PW2 has not treated the injured and moreover he is not orthopedic surgeon. Therefore, he is incompetent to assess the disability of the claimant. He further submits that the Tribunal in its judgment and award noted that PW2 is the professional witness to the Court and he has appeared in several motor vehicle accident cases, although he has not treated the injured. He ahs issued a disability certificate - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5473 MFA No. 101957 of 2016 stating disability disproportionately. As such, his evidence is not reliable. Even in the judgments rendered by this Court conduct of said doctor was commented. Under these circumstances, the evidence of PW2 is not reliable. For these reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 13. Let me scan the evidence placed on record: Ex.P4 was issued by the Medical Officer of VIMS Hospital, Ballari, stating that the claimant sustained a cut lacerated wound over the right knee measuring 2 cm x 0.5 cm; and an abrasion injury over the vertex measuring 0.5 cm x 0.5 c.m. The Doctor opined that these injures are simple in nature. It appears that the claimant was admitted as an inpatient at VIMS Hospital, Ballari. His case sheet is also available at Ex.P9, which shows that he sustained a fracture of occipital bone and was admitted as an inpatient from 14.02.2014 to 19.02.2014. The documents also reveal that he was discharged from the hospital against the medical advice. It appears that the claimant has continued his - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5473 MFA No. 101957 of 2016 treatment as an out patient, and after discharge form the hospital. 14. The claimant also taken treatment at St. Mary’s Hosptial, Ballary. A copy of the inpatient record is marked as Ex.P8. It appears that he consulted PW2 on 14.12.2015, nearly one year 10 months after the accident. PW2 found that the claimant had sustained extradural hematoma occipital region i.e., a fracture of both occipital bones, hemorrhage of left side cerebral region. He diagnosed these facts based on the CT Scan report. However, the petitioner has not produced the CT Scan Report. As submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.3, even if evidence of PW2 is considered the documents produced by him, do not show that there is evidence of a fracture of both occipital bones. 15. The claimant initially took treatment for about five days at the Government Hospital and also took treatment at St. Mary’s Hospital, Ballari. The Tribunal has awarded compensation for medical expenses on the basis of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5473 MFA No. 101957 of 2016 the receipts produced. In addition to this, the claimant incurred expenses of conveyance, attendant charges, special diet etc., which also need to be considered. PW1 in his evidence, stated that he has been suffering from giddiness and is unable to work as he was working prior to the accident. He has constant headache and giddiness, which worsen while performing the work. According to his case, he is a driver by profession, but he has not produced his driving licence. His contention that he is suffering permanent disability to the extent of 35% to 40% has not been proven, either before the Tribunal or this Court. Hence, it cannot be considered. 16. Considering the materials available on record, the claimant is entitled for global enhancement of the compensation. 17. For the aforesaid reason, this Court pass the following: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5473 MFA No. 101957 of 2016 ORDER (i) Accordingly the petition is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 26th April 2016, passed in MVC No.853/2014 by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-II, Ballari is modified. (iii) The claimant is entitled for global enhancement of compensation of Rs.40,000/- in addition to the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant is also entitled to the interest on the enhanced global compensation amount at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment of enhanced amount. (iv) Respondent No.3 is liable to pay the enhanced compensation amount and shall deposit the same within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5473 MFA No. 101957 of 2016 (v) The amount of enhanced compensation is meager. Hence, the entire amount of enhanced compensation is ordered to be released in favour of the claimant, on due identification. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE VNP /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5