- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7881 MFA No. 24575 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24575 OF 2012 (MV) BETWEEN: SANJEEV @ SANJU S/O MANTAPPA SANNAMANI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DASANAL, NOW RESIDING AT KULGOD, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHIDAMBER S/O SHIVAPPA UPPAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NEAR B.D.O. OFFICE, SAVADATTI, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. THE CLAIMS MANAGER, SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., F-5, 2ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBER INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 24-09- 2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.926/2011 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, GOKAK. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7881 MFA No. 24575 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the claimant/appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 24.09.2012, passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Gokak, in MVC No.926/2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), questioning dismissal of claim petition. 2. Heard the arguments and perused the material placed before the Court. 3. It is the case of the claimant that on 31.03.2011 at about 03.15 p.m., near Katamatti Tanda Cross when the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-22/9086 on Munnoli-Savadatti road and at that time, auto rickshaw pickup van bearing Reg.No.KA- 24/4375 has dashed the motorcycle of the claimant. Thus, the claim petition is filed by the claimant. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the claim petition on the reason that the claimant himself while overtaking the auto rickshaw - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7881 MFA No. 24575 of 2012 pickup van, has caused the accident. Therefore, the claimant himself was rash and negligent in driving the motorcycle. Hence, considering these reasons, has dismissed the claim petition. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. Upon appreciating evidence on record in the factual background of the case as per Ex.P5-chargesheet, both auto rickshaw pickup van and motorcycle were damaged. The only reason assigned by the Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition that the claimant-PW-1, during the course of cross-examination of PW-1, has admitted that while overtaking the auto rickshaw pickup van, the motorcycle itself dashed to the auto rickshaw pickup van and thus, by observing this, has dismissed the claim petition. 6. But upon considering the cross-examination of PW-1, this observation is not found in the cross- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7881 MFA No. 24575 of 2012 examination of PW-1. What is suggested by the counsel for the insurance company is that the claimant while overtaking the auto rickshaw has dashed auto rickshaw, but this suggestion is denied as false. But Tribunal has appreciated this suggestion as true but this is not so. If this suggestion is admitted by the PW-1, the Tribunal is correct in its observation but the suggestion made by the insurance company to the PW-1, in this regard, it is denied as false. Therefore, this is perverse approach by the Tribunal. It is the categorical case of the claimant that the auto rickshaw pick up van has dashed the motorcycle and caused accident, which is corroborated by complaint, FIR, IMV report and chargesheet. Therefore, Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition. Thus, judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the claimant is entitled for reasonable compensation. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7881 MFA No. 24575 of 2012 7. In the present case, from the medical evidence on record, it is proved that the claimant had suffered the following injuries: “i. Compound fracture of medical malleolus with dislocation of left ankle/cut lacerated wound 6” x 4” exposed bone cut extensor tendon of foot and toes/foot drop and toes drop present. ii. Fracture of navicular bone of left foot/fracture of talus with bone loss. iii. Multiple cut lacerated wounds over face/black eye or right side.” 8. Further, the Doctor has stated that the claimant has suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 55%, which is found to be exaggerated one. Therefore, considering the factors that the claimant has suffered compound fracture of dislocation of left ankle joint, it is just and proper to take 13% as functional disability considering the nature of job of the claimant as he was an agriculturist by following principle of law laid down by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7881 MFA No. 24575 of 2012 Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar V/s Ajay Kumar & Another1. 9. The accident is caused in the year 2011. Therefore, notional income of Rs.6,000/- per month is taken into consideration, which is recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority. The claimant was aged 25 years old at the time of accident. Therefore, appropriate applicable multiplier is ‘18’. Hence, loss of future income due to disability is hereby reassessed and quantified as under: Rs.6,000 x 12 x 18 x 13% = Rs.1,68,480/- 10. Further, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.70,850/- towards medical expenses. Further, Rs.10,000/- towards incidental expenses like food, nourishment, traveling, attendant charges, etc., and Rs.12,000/- (6,000x2) towards loss of income during laid up period for a period of two months, is awarded. The 1 2011 (1) SCC 343 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7881 MFA No. 24575 of 2012 claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities. 11. Thus, the claimant is entitled for total compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards injuries, pain and suffering. 25,000 2. Towards medical expenses. 70,850 3. Towards loss of amenities. 20,000 4. Towards loss of income during laid up period 12,000 5. Towards incidental charges like attendant charges, food, nourishment, conveyance, etc. 10,000 6. Towards loss of future earning capacity. 1,68,480 Total: 3,06,330/- 12. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,06,330/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 13. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7881 MFA No. 24575 of 2012 ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and award dated 24.09.2012, passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Gokak, in MVC No.926/2011 is set-aside. Consequently, the claim petition filed by the claimant is allowed in part. iii) The claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,06,330/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. iv) The insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount along with accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7881 MFA No. 24575 of 2012 v) Registry is directed to send back the trial Court Records along with copy of this judgment to the Tribunal. vi) Draw award accordingly. vii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE RKM CT:BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71