- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12303 MFA No. 103555 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100057 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103555 OF 2016 (MV-I) C/W MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100057 OF 2021 IN MFA NO. 103555 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DARE HOUSE, 2ND FLOOR, NO.234, NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI. NOW REP BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY OF CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.135/5, 2ND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, J.P. NAGAR, 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU-560078. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV) AND: 1. RATHNAM S/O CHINNASWAMY, 48 YEARS, EX-DRIVER, R/O: MAMARATHUR, ARAGANUR, METTUR TALUK, SALEM DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU-603613. 2. SOMASHEKAR S/O SHIVARAJA REDDY, 31 YEARS, OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING REG. NO.KA-16/A-8902, R/O: VENKATAPURA VILLAGE, MOKAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12303 MFA No. 103555 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100057 of 2021 THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:05.04.2016, PASSED IN MVC. NO.1027/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-II, BALLARI, AWARDING THE COMPENSTION OF RS.9,20,865/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING; IN MFA CROSS OBJ NO.100057 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RATHNAM S/O. CHINNASWAMY AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. EX-DRIVER, R/O. MAMARATHUR, ARAGANUR, TQ. METTUR, DIST. SALEM, TAMIL NADU STATE-636001 …CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV) AND: 1. SRI. SOMASHEKHAR S/O. SHIVARAJA REDDY AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. OWNER OF THE LORRY KA-16/A-8902, R/O. VENKATAPURA VILLAGE, TQ. MOLAKALMURU, DIST. CHITRADURGA-577501. 2. THE MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DARE HOUSE, 2ND FLOOR, N. 234, NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI-600001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.103555/2016 IS FILED U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC. 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.04.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1027/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS CROSS OBJECTION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12303 MFA No. 103555 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100057 of 2021 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Appeal and the cross objection are filed by the Insurance Company and the petitioner, challenging the judgment and award dated 05.04.2016 passed in MVC No.1027/2013 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Ballari. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: 3. On 09.03.2012, at about 10.30 p.m., the petitioner, along with one K.M.Jagannatham, were proceeding in the lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-30/AW-3699 from Sindhanur to Madras, slowly, cautiously, and on the proper side of the road. When the said lorry was crossing the Bhagyanagar Camp on SH-19 Ballari-Siruguppa road, at that time, the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-16/A- 8902 came from the opposite direction at a high speed and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12303 MFA No. 103555 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100057 of 2021 in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the lorry of the petitioner. Due to the said impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries all over his body. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, pray to allow the claim petition. 4. The driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident, and the policy was in force. Hence, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the offending vehicle. 5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12303 MFA No. 103555 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100057 of 2021 petition. It is denied that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 7. The petitioner, examined himself as P.W.1, examined the doctor as P.W.2, and marked 22 documents as Exs.P1 to P22. Conversely, the respondents did not lead any oral or documentary evidence. 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 05.04.2013, and awarded a compensation of Rs.9,20,865/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realisation, and held that the owner cum driver and the insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12303 MFA No. 103555 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100057 of 2021 the Petitioner and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount. 9. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1027/2013, filed an appeal in MFA No.103555/2016, challenging the quantum of disability and the petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, filed an appeal in MFA Crob.No.100057/2021. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for the petitioners. 11. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. He submits that the petitioner examined the doctor as P.W.2, who has not treated the petitioner. The disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and to dismiss the cross objection filed by the petitioner. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12303 MFA No. 103555 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100057 of 2021 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as a driver and used to get a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-, wherein the Tribunal has taken the monthly income at Rs.6,000/-, which is on the lower side. He submits that the Tribunal could have assessed the monthly income at Rs.10,000/- for the driver, who has a license to drive a transport vehicle. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the cross objection. 13. I have perused the records, and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation. Reg. Quantum of compensation: 15. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12303 MFA No. 103555 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100057 of 2021 The Tribunal, considering a charge sheet, marked at EX-P.9, has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 16. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is contended that the petitioner was working as a driver, and used to get a salary Rs.10,000/- p.m., he possessed a license to drive a transport vehicle, and because of the permanent disability, the petitioner could not drive the vehicle. Hence, this court reassess the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.10,000/- p.m. The petitioner was aged about 45 years old as of the date of the accident, and the multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘14’. To prove the disability, the petitioner examined the doctor as P.W.2, who has opined that the petitioner has sustained a permanent disability to an extent of 55%, wherein the Tribunal has taken the disability at 40%. Considering the evidence of the doctor i.e, PW-2 and the medical records, this court is of the opinion that the percentage of disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. This court - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12303 MFA No. 103555 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100057 of 2021 reassesses the permanent disability to the whole body at 45%. 17. Thus, this court on re-assessment of the entire evidence on record, awards the following compensation: Compensation awarded in Rs. Sl. No. Heads of compensation By the Tribunal By this Court Pain and suffering 80,000 1,00,000 Medical expenses 2,79,665 2,79,665 4 Loss of income during the laid up period 18,000/- 50,000 (Rs.10,000 x 5) 5 Loss of future earning due to permanent disability 4,03,200 7,56,000 (Rs.10,000x12x14x 45%) 6 Future medical expenses 30,000 30,000 Loss of amenities 10,000 25,000 7 Loss of future prospects 1,00,000 -- Total : 9,20,865 12,40,665 Compensation enhanced by: 3,19,800 18. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal in MFA No. 103555/2016 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. (ii) The cross objection in MFA CROB No.100057/2021 filed by the petitioner is allowed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12303 MFA No. 103555 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100057 of 2021 (iii) The impugned judgment and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified. (iv) The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.12,40,665/- as against Rs.9,20,865/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation is Rs.3,19,800/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation of the amount. (v) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with accrued interest within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (vi) The Tribunal records, and the amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3