- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9731 MFA No. 23282 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22881 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23282 OF 2013 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22881 OF 2013 IN MFA No.23282/2013 BETWEEN: 1. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, RAGHAAKRISHNA COMPLEX, K.C.ROAD, BALLARI RPTD. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, IFFCO-TOKYO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER, SHRI SHANTI TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, 3RD MAIN, 141, EAST OF N.G.E.F. LAYOUT, KASTURINAGAR, BENGALURU-560043 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.K KAYAKAMATH, ADV) AND: 1. ULIGODDALA BANDEGOUDA @ U. BANDEGOUDA S/O U. VEERANA GOUDA, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: ELECTIRICIAN CUM OWNER OF THE CABLE, R/O: KANEKAL, PRESENTLY IS R/AT RANI THOTA, MILLER PETH, BALLARI. 2. TAILOR KANEKAL SARDAR HUSSAIN S/O T.K.ABDUL REHAMAN, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF JEEP BEARING REG. NO.AP-02/W-558, R/O: KANEKAL POLICE STATION, PROPRIETOR OF MAHABOOB PESTICIDE SHOP, KANEKAL, ANANTHPUR DISTRICT. 3. SRI. A.KRISHNA MURTHY S/O A.LAKSHMAIAH AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF JEEP BEARING REG. NO.AP-02/W-558, R/O: NO AP 28-292, SUHASH ROAD, OLD TOWN, ANANTHPUR DISTRICT, MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.22 12:53:32 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9731 MFA No. 23282 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22881 of 2013 ANDHRA PRADESH. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA G PATIL, ADV FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 & R3 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:28-03-2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.51/2011 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT-XI, BALLARI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,17,937/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING; IN MFA No.22881/2013 BETWEEN: 1. ULIGODDALA BANDEGOUDA @ U.BANDEGOUDA S/O U. VEERANA GOUDA, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: ELECTRICIAN CUM OWNER OF CABLE TV, R/O: KANEKAL, PRESENTLY R/O: RANI THOTA, MILLERPET, BALLARI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA G PATIL, ADV) AND: 1. A. KRISHNA MURTHY S/O A. LAKSHMAIAH HINDU, MAJOR, OWNER OF JEEP NO. AP-02/W-558, R/O: NO.28-292, SUHASH ROAD, OLD TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2 M/S. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITTED, BY ITS MANAGER, RAGHAVA KRISHNA COMPLEX, K C ROAD, BALLARI. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:28-03-2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.51/2011 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT-XI, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9731 MFA No. 23282 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22881 of 2013 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 28.03.2013 passed in MVC No.51 of 2011 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- XI, Ballari, (for short, “the Tribunal”) filed MFA No.23282 of 2013, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. The claimant, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed MFA No.22881 of 2013 seeking for enhancement of compensation. 3. Both appeals arise out of the judgment passed in MVC No.51 of 2011 by the Tribunal. The same are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of acts. 4. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9731 MFA No. 23282 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22881 of 2013 5. On 18.08.2009, when the claimant was standing in front of his house, he was hit by a jeep bearing registration No.AP-02/W-558 and sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted to the hospital as an inpatient for 8 days. The accident occurred due to the rash negligent driving of the driver of Jeep. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle in Crime No.60 of 2009. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of ₹6,75,000/- for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. 6. Respondent No.1—driver of the jeep filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that respondent No.2—owner of the jeep has not appointed respondent No.1 as his driver to drive the said jeep, but one Chand Pasha did, whenever there was a need for the movement of the vehicle. Hence, prays - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9731 MFA No. 23282 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22881 of 2013 to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.1. 7. Respondent No.2—owner of the jeep filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and he reiterated the averments made in the Statement of objections filed by respondent No.1 and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against him. 8. Respondent No.3—insurer of the jeep filed a written statement of objections, denying averments made in the claim petition and it is contended that the policy of the offending vehicle was not in force as on the date of the accident and the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.3. 9. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed relevant issues. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9731 MFA No. 23282 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22881 of 2013 10. The claimant to substantiate his claim petition averments, examined himself as PW-1, examined one witness as PW-2 and marked 12 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-12. 11. In rebuttal, respondent No.1 was examined as RW-1 and an official of the insurance company was examined as RW-2, examined one more witness as RW-3 and respondent No.2 was examined as RW-4 and marked 2 documents as Exs.R-1 and R-2. 12. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part. It is held that the claimant is entitled to the compensation of ₹2,17,937/- with cost and future interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and respondent No.3 was directed to pay the compensation amount with accrued interest. 13. The insurance company aggrieved by the impugned judgment, filed MFA No.23282 of 2013 and the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9731 MFA No. 23282 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22881 of 2013 claimant filed MFA No.22881 of 2013 for enhancements of compensation. 14. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurance company and the learned counsel for the claimant. 15. The learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the claimant has not produced any proof in support of his income. Despite that the Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant at ₹6,000/- per month. He submits that the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. He submits that as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income that has to be taken into consideration is ₹5,000/- per month, as the accident is of the year 2009. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9731 MFA No. 23282 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22881 of 2013 higher side. Hence, prays to allow the appeal filed by it and dismiss the appeal filed by the claimant. 16. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper do not call for any interference. He submits that the claimant was doing electrical work and was the owner of a cable TV operation and earning ₹10,000/- per month. He submits that to prove the disability, the claimant examined the doctor as PW2, who has opined that the claimant has sustained 30% disability to the whole body. The Tribunal has, however, assessed the disability at 15% only, which is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal filed by him and prays to dismiss the appeal filed by the insurer. 17. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9731 MFA No. 23282 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22881 of 2013 18. The point that arises for consideration is about the quantum of compensation. 19. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident, injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle. To prove the said aspects, the claimant has produced a charge sheet, marked as Ex.P-4, which discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. 20. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimant has contended that he was doing electrical work and the owner of a cable TV operation and was earning ₹10,000 per month, to prove the same, he has not produced any proof of income. 21. In the absence of any credible proof of income, the notional income has to be taken into consideration - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9731 MFA No. 23282 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22881 of 2013 and as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident in the year 2009, as per the chart, the notional income is to be assessed at ₹5,000/- per month. 22. The claimant to prove the disability has examined the doctor as PW-2, who has stated that he has not treated the claimant after the accident, however, he has issued a Disability Certificate, marked as Ex.P-6, which discloses that claimant has permanent partial disability to an extent of 30% with the subsequent loss of earnings. Since, he is not a treated doctor, the Tribunal has assessed the permanent partial disability to an extent of 15%, which, in my view, is just and proper and does not require re-assessment of the disability by this Court. 23. As observed above, the notional income of the claimant is assessed by this court at ₹5,000/- per month. As the accident occurred in 2009, the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9731 MFA No. 23282 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22881 of 2013 claimant was aged about 47 years as on the date of the accident. Future prospects of 25% is to be added to the notional income, as per the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. The net income would come to ₹6,250/-. The multiplier applicable to the said age of the claimant is ‘13’. 24. Considering the entire evidence on record, this Court reassesses the compensation under the following heads: Compensation awarded in Rs. Sl. No. Heads of compensation By the Tribunal By this Court 1 Pain and suffering 35,000/- 50,000/- 2 Medical expenses 10,937/- 10,937/- 3 Loss of income on account of disability 1,62,000/- 1,46,250/- (Rs.6,250/- x 12 x ‘13’ x 15%) 4 Loss of income during laid up period -- 15,000/- 4 Conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges 10,000/- 30,000/- 5 Loss of amenities -- 25,000/- Total : 2,17,937/- 2,77,187/- - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9731 MFA No. 23282 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22881 of 2013 Compensation enhanced by: 59,250/- 25. Thus, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of ₹2,77,187/- as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at ₹2,17,937/-. 26. Thus, the claimant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of ₹59,250/-. 27. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The appeal in MFA No.23282/2013, filed by the insurance company, is dismissed. (ii) The appeal in MFA No.22881/2013, filed by the claimant, is allowed in part. (iii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified. (iv) The claimant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of ₹59,250/- - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9731 MFA No. 23282 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 22881 of 2013 in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. (v) The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest within eight weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this judgment. (vi) The amount in deposit and Trial Court records are ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT: BSB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11