- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13228 MFA No. 101839 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101839 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. SANDEEP S/O. SAKARAM MESTRI AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: FURNITURE WORK NOW NIL, R/O. C/O. C V PATI, SADASHIV NAGAR, BELGAUM DIST. BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HANAMANT R LATUR, ADV) AND: 1. 1a. SHRI. SATISH S/O. DATARAM GAVANDE AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE R/O. KUDAL, TQ: KUDAL DIST: SHINDUDURG, MAHARASHTRA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS ANAND S/O. SATISH GAVANDE AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: SANGIRDEWADA, TQ. KUDAL, DIST. SHINDUDURG, MAHARASHTRA. 2. THE MANAGER THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD, TORRENTO BUILDING NO. 6 1ST FLOOR, BRIDGE ROAD, AYAR, CHENNAI-600020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S. JOSHI, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1(A) IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.02.2012, PASSED IN MVC NO.181/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.27 11:23:31 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13228 MFA No. 101839 of 2014 COURT-IV, BELGAUM, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Appeal is filed by the Petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 29.02.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.181/2010 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast track Court-IV, Belagavi. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The petitioner and his wife, were proceeding on a motorcycle. At that time, a car bearing registration No.MH- 07/Q-3555 came in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner filed a claim petition under section 166 of M.V. Act seeking - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13228 MFA No. 101839 of 2014 compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. 3. During the pendency of the claim petition, the owner of the offending vehicle died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The legal representatives did not file a statement of objections. Hence, the Tribunal has taken the statement of objections as not filed. 4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petitions and contended that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident, and there is a violation 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 common issues. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13228 MFA No. 101839 of 2014 6. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined the doctor as PW-2, and marked 12 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-12. On the other hand, the Insurance Company has not led any oral evidence but marked one document as Ex.R-1. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,24,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization by holding that the petitioner being the owner of the motorcycle is not entitled for 25% of the compensation amount (i.e., 75% of Rs.1,65,000/-) and respondent No.1(a) and respondent No.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay 75% of the compensation amount. 8. The petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal, filed this appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13228 MFA No. 101839 of 2014 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the petitioner has contributed negligent for causing the accident in question and is not entitled for 25% of the compensation amount. He submits that due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, the accident has occurred. He also submits that the Tribunal should have taken the notional income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident occurred in 2008. As per the schedule, monthly income of the petitioner is to be assessed at Rs.4,250/- wherein the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.3,000/- which is on the lower side. He further submits that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13228 MFA No. 101839 of 2014 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference by this Court and accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the contributory negligence and quantum of compensation. Regarding contributory negligence: 14. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner. The petitioner, to prove the accident, produced the certified copy of the FIR marked as Ex.P-1. Ex.P-5 is the Police tippani. The detailed perusal of the documents produced by the petitioner discloses that on the complaint of one Rajendra vide Ex.P-2, the police have registered a case - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13228 MFA No. 101839 of 2014 against the offending car and took up investigation. It is revealed that the rider of the motorcycle suddenly turned his motorcycle towards the opposite of the road, as such, the accident had occurred. Thus, the Tribunal rightly held that both the driver and the rider have not taken proper steps to avoid the accident and fastened the liability on both the rider and the driver of the vehicles in question in 25:75 ratio. I do not find any error in the judgment of the Tribunal regarding the 25% of liability saddling on the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered. Regarding quantum of compensation: 16. Further, the petitioner, to prove the permanent disability, examined the doctor as PW-2 who has opined that he has examined the petitioner clinically and radiologically and issued the disability certificate marked as Ex.P-9. According to him, the petitioner has sustained the following injuries: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13228 MFA No. 101839 of 2014  Tenderness elicited in the lower 1/3rd of right tibia bone and in the right ankle joint.  There is deformity of the lower 1/3rd of the right leg.  There is a malunion of the above said fracture bone.  Cannot flex the right ankle joint completely and cannot sit with cross legging.  There are two places fracture in the lower 1/3rd of the right tibia bone. There is limitation of motion in the right knee joint and ankle joint and the petitioner cannot do what work he was doing prior to the accident and he has opined that the petitioner has suffered 35% permanent disability to the whole body. 17. The Tribunal considering the evidence of doctor, has assessed the disability at 10%, which is on the lower side. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Court reassesses the disability to whole body of the petitioner at 12%. The petitioner has not produced any income proof. In the absence of income proof, the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13228 MFA No. 101839 of 2014 notional income has to be assessed as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident occurred in 2008. The notional income should be taken at Rs.4,250/- p.m. The petitioner was about 29 years old as of the date of the accident. 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.4,250 x 12 x 17 x 12% = 1,04,040/- 18. Considering the evidence of PW-2 and the medical records, this Court reassesses the compensation under the following heads: Sl.No. HEADS AMOUNT 1. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- 2. Loss of amenities and comforts in life Rs.40,000/- 3. Special diet, conveyance and incidental charges Rs.20,000/- 4. Attendant charges Rs.5,000/- 5. Medical expenses Rs.14,000/- 6. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.11,900/- 7. Loss of future earning Rs.1,04,040/- - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13228 MFA No. 101839 of 2014 capacity Total Rs.2,44,940/- Less: 25% of the compensation Rs.61,235/- Compensation entitled Rs.1,83,705/- 19. Thus in all, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,44,940/- as against Rs.1,65,000/-. As observed above, the petitioner is entitled to 75% of the total compensation. Hence, out of the total compensation of Rs.2,44,940/-, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.1,83,705/- i.e., 75% of the total compensation. 20. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 29.02.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.181/2010 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast track Court-IV, Belagavi is hereby modified. (iii) The petitioner is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.1,83,705/- with interest - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13228 MFA No. 101839 of 2014 at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization. (iv) 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 order. (v) The office is directed to transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12