- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15870 MFA No. 100079 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100079 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN: THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMADEV GALLI, BELGAUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, II FLOOR, ARIHANT PLAZA, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI ADIVEPPA S/O. SHANKARAPPA PATIL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE COOLIE, (NOW NIL), R/O. KURANI VILLAGE, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. SHRI DYAMAPPA DEVAPPA NINGAREDDI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. 956, ARABHAVI VILLAGE, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.07.2014 PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK COURT-II AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELGAUM IN MVC.NO.212/2013, WITH COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15870 MFA No. 100079 of 2015 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS ON DISMISSAL THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Ms.Sharmila M. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.Santosh S.Hattikatagi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Though notice was served upon respondent No.1, respondent No.1 did not choose to contest the matter. 2. Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘claimant’ for the sake of convenience of discussion) filed a petition seeking compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- on the ground that he sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident. The Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) which dealt with the case as M.V.C. No.212/2013 rendered orders on 03.07.2014 holding that the claimant also contributed for the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15870 MFA No. 100079 of 2015 accident to occur and his contribution is to an extent of 10%, that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,57,000/- in total as compensation and that the appellant herein is liable to pay 90% of the said sum that is Rs.4,11,300/-. 3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appeal is filed on two grounds. Firstly the claimant’s way of traveling is the root cause for the accident to happen and therefore, at least 50% of the negligence is required to be attributed on part of the appellant. Secondly, that the compensation granted is high and excessive. 4. Arguing on the first aspect, learned counsel states that the appellant was traveling in a Tata Ace vehicle, sitting at the back portion of the said vehicle protruding his legs outside and at that time, a jeep which is insured with the appellant hit the claimant and thereby he sustained injuries. Learned counsel states - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15870 MFA No. 100079 of 2015 that, in case the claimant was not sitting by protruding his legs outside, he would not have sustained injuries and therefore the contributory negligence on his part is liable to be fixed at 50%. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that charge sheet is laid against the driver of his jeep only and not against the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle in which the claimant was moving. 6. Admittedly, the vehicles moving on road are required to maintain safe distance between each other. However, here is a case where the jeep, without maintaining such safe distance, went and hit the Tata Ace vehicle. That apart, charge sheet is laid against the driver of the jeep only. The Tribunal having discussed all these aspects, has fixed contributory negligence to an extent of 10% upon the claimant. This Court does not find any grounds to interfere with such finding, which is both reasonable and convincing. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15870 MFA No. 100079 of 2015 7. Coming to the quantum that is awarded as compensation, the claimant admittedly sustained compound fracture of the lateral malleolus right ankle, which is grievous in nature, along with lacerated wound to the left ankle. Also, the claimant established that he underwent a surgery. However, the claimant failed to produce any proof with regard to his occupation and earnings as on the date of the accident. 8. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is that huge sum of Rs.60,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering, Rs.60,000/- towards loss of future happiness and amenities, apart from the compensation granted under other heads. Learned counsel also states that the Tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 20%, which is unjustifiable. At para 16 of the impugned order, the Tribunal made a mention that the treated doctor opined that the claimant is suffering from permanent disability of 20% to the whole body. The Tribunal opined that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15870 MFA No. 100079 of 2015 doctor has not given proper grounds or calculation to arrive at such a conclusion. Having said thus, the Tribunal again took the functional disability as 20% and awarded a sum of Rs.2,65,200/- towards loss of future earnings. 9. Also, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, for the year 2011 in which the accident occurred, awarding a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.60,000 towards loss of future happiness and amenities is on the higher side in the light of the injuries sustained. 10. Thus, considering all these factors, this Court is of the view that the compensation granted in excess can be taken as Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the reduction of payment on part of the appellant comes to Rs.45,000/- (Rs.50,000-10%). Therefore, this Court considers desirable to allow the appeal to such extent. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15870 MFA No. 100079 of 2015 11. Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following order: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. Compensation granted by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum through orders in MVC No.212/2013 dated 03.07.2014 is reduced by Rs.50,000/- and the proportionate reduction on part of liability of the appellant is fixed at Rs.45,000/- iii. Amount, if any, in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE RH,GAB CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15