- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10304 MFA No. 101424 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101424 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. KHAJA SAB S/O PEERA SAB AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HAMPINAKATTE VILLAGE POST: DANAPURA, TQ: HOSAPETE DIST: BALLARI- 583222 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.M. KALWAD, ADV) AND: 1. PRASHANT BYALI S/O NINGAPPA AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY, R/O: BANNIKOPPA VILLAGE AND POST TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG-582120. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, OPP: MAYURA HOTEL, BALLARI-583105. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.K KAYAKAMATH, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.624/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPETE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. 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 MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.30 15:42:22 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10304 MFA No. 101424 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal No.101424/2016 is filed by the petitioner being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No.624/2014 dated 23.01.2016 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hospete (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts leading raise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 24.12.2012, the petitioner was proceeding as a pillion rider on a motorcycle ridden by one Sanna Gangappa, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-17/A-7662, came in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner suffered grievous injuries and due to the impact of the accident, he is not in a position to carry on his work as he was working earlier. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10304 MFA No. 101424 of 2016 In view of the same, he filed a claim petition. Accordingly, pray to allow the appeal. 3. The driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle appeared through his Advocate, but did not file a statement of objections. 4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner himself and that the rider of the motorcycle was responsible for the cause of accident, as he was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleading of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. To substantiate his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1, the Doctor as PW-2 and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10304 MFA No. 101424 of 2016 produced 31 documents, which were marked as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.31. In rebuttal, on behalf of the Insurance Company, its official was examined as RW-1 and 4 documents were marked as Exs.R.1 to Ex.R.4. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition and held that the petitioner is entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,67,350/- from the owner and the Insurance Company together, with interest at the rate of 9% and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the same. 7. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum compensation awarded by the Tribunal, has filed the present appeal. 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Insurance Company. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and that the Tribunal committed an error in fastening - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10304 MFA No. 101424 of 2016 the liability solely on the rider of the motorcycle. He has produced a Xerox copy of the Judgment passed in MVC No.1056/2013, wherein the said claim petition was arose out of the same accident. In that case, the Tribunal fastened the liability jointly and severally on the rider, owner and Insurance Company. He also submits that the Insurance Company has satisfied the award amount in MVC No.1056/2013. He submits that even in the present case, the liability ought to be fastened jointly and severally on the rider, owner and Insurance Company and hence prays for the enhancement of compensation and to allow the appeal. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10304 MFA No. 101424 of 2016 12. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and also the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the road traffic accident. Further to prove the income the petitioner has not produced any records. Thus, in the absence of Income proof, the notional income has to be taken as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Authority. Admittedly, the accident occurred in 2012 and hence, the notational income is Rs.6,500/-, without adding the future prospects. Therefore, the net income of the petitioner after adding the future prospects is Rs, 7,150/- (i.e Rs.6,500+ 10% of Rs.6,500/- ). To prove the disability, the petitioner has examined the Doctor as PW-2, who deposed and opined that the petitioner had suffered 27% disability of the limb, which comes to 13.5% and was rounded off to 14% of the whole body. The petitioner produced the wound certificate and marked it as Ex.P.4 and the disability certificate marked as Ex.P.8. Considering the entire evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation awarded by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10304 MFA No. 101424 of 2016 the Tribunal is on the lower side. The Tribunal assessed the disability at 14%, which is on the lower side. This Court reassesses the disability at 16% and accordingly, reassesses the compensation under the following heads: 1 Pain and Suffering Rs.50,000/- 2 Loss of income during the laid-up period Rs.20,000/- 3 Food, Nourishment and Conveyance etc., Rs.15,000/- 4 Medical expenses Rs.7,550/- 5 Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/- 6 Loss of future income (Rs.7,150/- x 12 x 11 x 16%) Rs.1,51,008/- 7 Future medical expenses Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.2,83,560/- (after rounding up) 13. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,83,560/- as against Rs.1,67,350/ awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,16,210/-. 14. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10304 MFA No. 101424 of 2016 (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The Judgment and award dated 23.01.2016 passed in MVC No.624/2014 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hospete, is modified. (iii) The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,83,560/- as against Rs.1,67,350/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation of Rs.1,16,210/-. (iv) The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,16,210/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. (v) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10304 MFA No. 101424 of 2016 (vi) The office is directed to transmit the records forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RHR/- CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11