- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10918 MFA No. 103397 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103397 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SMT. MUGUTAMMA W/O MAHABOOBSUBANI ATTAR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC. VEGETABLE VENDOR (NOW NIL), R/O. PINJAR GALLI, BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591102 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GURUKUMAR V A, ADV) AND: 1. SHRI. ALTAF MUTUGSAB SHIRAJWALE AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O. BAGAWAN CHAWL NEAR PRERANA SCHOOL BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591102. 2. SHRI. NOORAHAMAD GOUS MOHADDIN BALIGAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER R/O. HOSA ONI, NEAR SUHANA MARRIAGE HALL, BAILHONGAL DIST. BELAGAVI-591102. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MERCHANTS BANK BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, S.R. CIRCLE, BAILHONGAL DIST. BELAGAVI-591102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S ARANI, ADV FOR R3, NOTICE TO R1 & R2 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1998 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1379/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BAILHONGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.03 11:08:52 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10918 MFA No. 103397 of 2017 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act, 1988” for short) by the petitioner being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by Tribunal in MVC No.1379/2014 dated 22.04.2017 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: On 10.11.2013, the petitioner along with her family members were traveling in a auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-24/2479. The driver of the auto-rickshaw drove the same in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the auto-rickshaw turned turtle. Due to the said impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition seeking compensation. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10918 MFA No. 103397 of 2017 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, i.e., the owner and the driver of the auto-rickshaw filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the driver of the auto-rickshaw possessed a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident, and the policy was in force. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the auto-rickshaw. 4. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the driver of the auto- rickshaw do not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.3-Insurance Company. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. To substantiate her case, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1, also examined the doctor as P.W.2, and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10918 MFA No. 103397 of 2017 marked 168 documents as Exs.P1 to P168. The respondents have not led any oral evidence, but got marked 3 documents marked as Exs.R1 to R3. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition in part with costs, and awarded compensation of Rs.2,08,390/-. It is held that the owner and the Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, to prove the disability has examined the treated doctor as P.W.2. He opined that the petitioner has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10918 MFA No. 103397 of 2017 sustained 30% disability to the left lower limb. However, the Tribunal has taken the disability, at 9%, which is on the lower side. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, and do not call for any interference by this court. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The point that arises for consideration is regarding quantum of compensation. 11. There is no dispute regarding occurrence of the accident, the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident, and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto-rickshaw, by its driver. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10918 MFA No. 103397 of 2017 12. Insofar as quantum of the compensation is concerned, to prove the disability, the petitioner has examined the treated doctor as P.W.2. The doctor has opined that the petitioner has sustained 30% disability to the left lower limb and issued the disability certificate, which is marked as Ex.P10. However, the Tribunal has taken the disability at 9%, which is on the lower side. Based on the evidence of the doctor, and the medical records produced by the petitioner, this court re-assess the disability at 13%. As of the date of the accident, the petitioner was aged about 60 years, and the multiplier applicable is ‘9’. Further, the 10% future prospectus must be added to the notional income of the petitioner. Thus, in view of the above discussion, this court after re-assessing the entire evidence on record, awards the following compensation : Compensation awarded in Rs. Sl. No. Heads of compensation By the Tribunal By this Court 1 Pain and suffering 40,000 60,000 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10918 MFA No. 103397 of 2017 2 Loss of amenities and future unhappiness 15,000 30,000 3 Medical expenses 49,350 49,350 4 Loss of income during treatment and rest 21,000 23,100 (Rs.7,700 x 3) 5 Loss of future income 68,040 1,08,108 (Rs.7,100x12x9x 13%) 6 Incidental expenses 15,000 30,000 Total : 2,08,390 3,00,558 Compensation enhanced by: 92,168 13. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part with costs. ii) The judgment and the award dated 22.04.2017 passed in MVC No.1379/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal is hereby modified. iii) The petitioner is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.92,168/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation of the amount. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10918 MFA No. 103397 of 2017 iv) The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. v) 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.: 18