- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9803 MFA No. 24530 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24269 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24530 OF 2012 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24269 OF 2012 IN MFA NO.24530/2012 BETWEEN: 1. IRAMMA D/O BASANAGOUDA KULKARNI, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REP. BY MINOR GUARDIAN FATHER BASANAGOUDA, S/O BAPUGUDA KULAKARNI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL, R/O: HONNAPUR, TQ: RON, NOW R/AT: C/O BASAVARAJ IRAPPA BALIGERI HOUSE, R/O: HUILGOL, TQ & DIST. GADAG. …APPELLANT (BY SRIYUTHS. DEEPAK MAGANUR for CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADVS) AND: 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE GADAG RENUKA ARCADE, STATION ROAD, GADAG, DIST. GADAG. 2. BALANAGOUDA MARIGOUDA TAMMANAGOUDAR, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL AND OWNER OF TUM TUM, GOODS VEHICLE BEARING, NO.26/4824, R/O: GAJAMAGADI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S K KAYAKAMATH, ADV FOR R1 SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADV FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 03-07-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.278/2008 ON THE FILE OF DISTIRCT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.30 12:09:28 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9803 MFA No. 24530 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24269 of 2012 MACT, GADAG, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO.24269/2012 BETWEEN: 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, GADAG, RENUKA ARCADE, STATION ROAD, GADAG, REP BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ARIHANT PLAZA, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-23 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV) AND: 1. KUMARI. IRAMMA D/O BASANAGOUDA KULKARNI, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, RESPONDENT BEING MINOR REP BY M/G FATHER BASANAGOUDA BAPUGOUDA KULKARNI AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HONNAPUR, TQ: RON, NOW AT C/O. BASAVARAJ IRAPPA BALAGERI HOUSE, R/O. HUILGOL TQ. GADAG. 2. SRI. BALANAGOUDA S/O TAMMANAGOUDAR AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRI, RETIRED TEACHER, R/O. GAJENDRAGADA, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRIYUTHS. DEEPAK S. MAGANUR for CHANDRASHEKAR P PATIL, ADVS FOR R1, R2 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:03-07-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.278/2008 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, GADAG, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,43,035/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9803 MFA No. 24530 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24269 of 2012 THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) Miscellaneous First Appeal No.24269/2012 is filed by the insurance company, challenging the judgment and award dated 03.07.2012 passed in MVC No.278/2008 by the learned District Judge and MACT, Gadag (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short). MFA No.24530/2012 is filed by the claimant, seeking an enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.278/2008. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The claimant, aged about 13 years, who is a student, represented by her father, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. The accident occurred on 30.08.2008 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the small goods - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9803 MFA No. 24530 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24269 of 2012 vehicle bearing registration No.KA-26/4824 and the claimant suffered permanent disability. 3. The owner of the said goods vehicle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the said vehicle was insured with the insurance company at the time of the accident and the policy was in force. The driver of the offending vehicle was in possession of a valid and effective driving licence. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition against him. 4. The Insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. Further, it is contended in the additional statement of objections that the owner of the LVC bearing No.KA-26/4824 was not possessed a fitness certificate to drive the vehicle as of the date of accident. As on the date of the accident, his vehicle was not possessing fitness - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9803 MFA No. 24530 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24269 of 2012 certificate. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed relevant issues. 6. The claimant, to substantiate the case, father of the claimant was examined as PW.1, examined the Doctors as PWs.2 and 3 and marked 28 documents as Ex.P-1 to P- 28. In rebuttal, 2 witnesses were examined as RWs.1 and 2 and the respondents marked 5 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-5. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs, awarding a sum of Rs.1,43,035/- with costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum and directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount. 8. The insurance company aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, filed an appeal in MFA No.24269/2012, challenging the liability and the claimant, filed an appeal in MFA No.24530/2012, seeking for an enhancement of the compensation. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9803 MFA No. 24530 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24269 of 2012 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurance company and the learned counsel for the claimant. 10. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the accident. He also submits that the wound certificate discloses the cause of injury as an assault and not because of a road traffic accident. He submits that the claimant has sustained injuries by assault and not in a road traffic accident. He submits that the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the insurance company. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the insurance company and dismiss the appeal filed by the claimants. 11. Per contra learned counsel for the claimant submitted that he met with an accident and sustained the grievous injuries and also examined the Doctors as PWs.2 and 3. The petitioner examined the doctor, who issued the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9803 MFA No. 24530 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24269 of 2012 wound certificate wherein the nature of injury is wrongly mentioned as “assault” and later on it was corrected in the original records as the injuries occurred due to a road traffic accident. He also submits that the insurance company has not produced any records to establish that the accused involved in the crime was having any enmity with the claimant. He submits that the claimant has examined the doctors as PWs.2 and 3, who have opined that the claimant has suffered the disability to an extent of 20% to the whole body. To buttress the argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another1, and therefore the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the claimant and prays to dismiss the appeal filed by the insurance company. 1 (2014) 14 Supreme Court Cases 396 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9803 MFA No. 24530 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24269 of 2012 12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The points that arise for consideration are regarding the quantum of compensation and liability. 14. Regarding liability is concerned: There is no dispute that the petitioner met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. Further, a criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. From the perusal of the charge sheet, marked as Ex.P-5, disclosed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal was justified in answering issue No.1 in the affirmative. 15. The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. The insurance company has also filed an additional statement of objections. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9803 MFA No. 24530 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24269 of 2012 16. From the perusal of the statement of objections and the additional statement of objections, the insurance company has not pleaded that the injuries suffered by the claimant is by assault and not because of a road traffic accident. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the insurance company does not hold water. 17. Admittedly, the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 339 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, the claimant has also examined the Doctor who has issued the wound certificate marked as Ex.P-6. PW-3 is the doctor who has issued the wound certificate, wherein he has stated that due to the rush of work, instead of mentioning it as a road traffic accident, he has mentioned it as assault and in the course of cross-examination, he has admitted that he had made a mistake in writing the word “assault” in the wound certificate. PW.3 has clarified that the word assault mentioned in Ex.P-6 was a mistake. The claimant has examined the author of Ex.P-6 i.e. PW.3. From the perusal - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9803 MFA No. 24530 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24269 of 2012 of the records, it is clear that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and not by assault. The Tribunal was justified in saddling the liability on both, the owner and the insurance company. 18. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned: The claimant was aged 13 years as of the date of the accident. The claimant has suffered disability and she has examined the Doctors as PWs.2 and 3. They have opined that the claimant has suffered disability of 20% to the whole body and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,43,035/-. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun (supra) has held as follows: 12. Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and up to 30% to the whole - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9803 MFA No. 24530 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24269 of 2012 body, Rs.3 lakhs; up to 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; up to 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakhs. For permanent disability up to 10%, it should be Rs.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take a different yardstick. 19. In the present case, the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 20% which is just and proper. Considering the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 and the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, this Court re-assess the compensation as follows: Sl. No. Heads Re-assessment of Compensation by this Court 1 Pain and suffering already undergone and to be suffered, mental and physical shock, hardship etc. 2,00,000/- 2 Medical expenses 5,635/- 3 Discomfort and unhappiness 25,000/- TOTAL 2,30,635/- - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9803 MFA No. 24530 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24269 of 2012 20. Thus, the claimant is entitled to re-assessed compensation of Rs.2,30,635/- as against Rs.1,43,035/- awarded by the Tribunal. 21. Accordingly, the points for consideration are answered. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. MFA No.24269/2012 is dismissed. ii. MFA No.24530/2012 is allowed. iii. The judgment and award dated 03.07.2012 passed in MVC No.278/2008 by the learned District Judge and MACT, Gadag, is modified. The claimant is entitled to re-assessed compensation of Rs.2,30,635/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. iv. The insurance company and the owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable for payment of enhanced compensation to the claimant. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9803 MFA No. 24530 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24269 of 2012 v. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Amount in deposit and the records are to be transmitted to the Tribunal. Draw an award accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB