- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12179 MFA No. 100788 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100788 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. MR. SHAHAJI S/O MADHAVARAO PATIL AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SHRI. BHAVANI, KAMALAPUR ROAD, NARAYANPUR STREET, DHARWAD TQ & DIST: DHARWAD. 2. NIKITHA D/O SHAHAJI PATIL AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHRI. BHAVANI, KAMALAPUR ROAD, NARAYANPUR STREET, DHARWAD, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD. &APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADV) AND: 1. VAISHALI W/O VIJAY SATE AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: TAILOR, R/O: GANDHI NAGAR, DHARWAD, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD. &RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADV FOR RESPONDENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.12.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.995/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER FAST TRACK AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, DHARWAD, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,09,950/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT FROM THE RESPONDENT NO.1 & 2 WHO ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE TO PAY THE COMPENSATION TO PETITIONER AND SO THEY ARE DIRECTED TO DEPOSIT THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT STATED SUPRA WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ORDER. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12179 MFA No. 100788 of 2015 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 8M.V.Act,9 for short), by the owner and the rider of the offending vehicle, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation in the judgment and award dated 31.12.2014 in MVC No. 995/2012, passed by the learned Fast Track Court and Additional MACT, Dharwad. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. On 20.02.2010 at about 11.00 a.m., the petitioner, as a pedestrian proceeding near JSS College, Vidyagiri bus stop on P.B.Road, Dharwad. At that time, a Honda Aviator motor-cycle bearing registration No.KA-25/EB- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12179 MFA No. 100788 of 2015 4130 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. He spent a huge amount towards medical and other incidental expenses. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking for compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. 4. The owner and rider of the motorcycle appeared through the counsel and filed a statement of objections. 5. Respondent No.1-the owner of the offending vehicle, filed a statement of objections and the same was adopted by respondent No.2 i.e., the rider of the motorcycle in question. The owner of the motorcycle denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed by the petitioner - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12179 MFA No. 100788 of 2015 is exorbitant. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition. 6. The tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 7. The petitioner to substantiate his case examined herself as PW-1, examined the doctor as PW-2 and marked 11 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-11. Neither the rider nor the owner of the offending vehicle have entered the witness box. The tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a compensation of ¹2,09,950/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum and directed the rider and the owner of the motorcycle to deposit the compensation amount. 8. The owner and the rider of the motorcycle in question, aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12179 MFA No. 100788 of 2015 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 10. The learned counsel for the rider and owner of the motorcycle in question submits that the tribunal has failed to assess the evidence on record and granted compensation only on the assumptions and presumptions. He submits that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is exorbitant. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor-cycle in question and to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle in question, produced the charge sheet. He also submits that as of the date of accident, the vehicle was not insured and the tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the rider and owner of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12179 MFA No. 100788 of 2015 motorcycle in question and he also submits that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side. Hence on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 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 the quantum of compensation. Reg. liability: 14. It is not disputed regarding the occurrence of accident and the petitioner having suffered injuries in the road traffic accident. The petitioner to establish that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle in question has produced the certified copy of the charge sheet, marked as Ex.P5. The Tribunal considering Ex.P5 has rightly recorded its finding that the accident was occurred due to the rash - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12179 MFA No. 100788 of 2015 and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle in question. 15. Admittedly, the vehicle met with an accident. The tribunal was justified in fastening the liability jointly and severally on the rider and owner of the motorcycle in question. Neither the rider nor the owner of the offending vehicle have produced any records to show that as of the date of accident the vehicle was insured. In the absence of insurance policy, the tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on both the rider and owner of the motorcycle. Reg. quantum of compensation: 16. It is the case of the petitioner that before the accident she was working as a tailor and was earning ¹5,000/- per month. To prove the income of the petitioner, she has not produced any proof of income. In the absence of income proof, the tribunal should have taken the notional income as per the schedule notified by the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12179 MFA No. 100788 of 2015 Karnataka Legal Services Authority. Admittedly, the accident is of the year 2010. As per the schedule, the tribunal should have taken the notional income at ¹5,500/-, wherein the tribunal has taken the notional income at ¹3,000/- which is on the lower side. However, the petitioner has not preferred any appeal seeking for enhancement. The tribunal considering the entire evidence on record was justified in passing impugned judgment and award. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. 17. The owner and the rider of the offending vehicle filed I.A.No.2/2015, for production of additional evidence. In support of an application, respondent No.1- the owner, filed an affidavit stating that the owner and the rider of the offending vehicle aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the tribunal filed this appeal. It is stated that the petitioner has suffered minor injuries and not the grievous injuries and he came to know about the said fact only when a notice - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12179 MFA No. 100788 of 2015 was served in the execution petition and immediately enquired in the Government Hospital, Dharwad and came to know that the injuries sustained by the petitioner is simple in nature. Hence prays to allow the application. 18. The owners and rider had an opportunity to produce the said documents before the tribunal. Further, the petitioner has examined the doctor as PW2. He has deposed that he examined the petitioner clinically and radiologically and opined that the petitioner has suffered disability. The rider and owner of the offending motorcycle appeared through the counsel and filed a statement of objections, but they have not entered the witness box and there is no rebuttal evidence to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 and PW2. Thus, the owner and the rider of the offending vehicle have not made out a ground to allow the application. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12179 MFA No. 100788 of 2015 19. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.2/2015 is also dismissed. ii. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25