- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10868 MFA No. 103612 of 2015 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. 103612 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. MALKARI S/O SIDRAM KOTRE AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS (NOW NIL) R/O: MEKHALI KOTRE TOTA, RAIBAG TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRIYUTHS. VITTHAL S. TELI AND YASH R. NADAKARNI, ADVS) AND: 1. MR. ARJUN S/O PUNDALIK CHOUGULE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: AT: MEKHALI, RAIBAG TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ASHOK NAGAR, NIPANI THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR R. BURJI, ADV FOR R1, SRI. R.R. MANE, ADV FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:30.09.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.1429/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S. 166 OF M.V. ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.15 17:50:51 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10868 MFA No. 103612 of 2015 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner/appellant challenging the dismissal of claim petition vide Judgment dated 30.09.2015 passed in MVC No.1429/2013 by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Belagavi (for short ‘the Tribunal’) 2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as follows: The petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing No.KA-23/V-2871 on 25.11.2012. At that time, the rider of another motorcycle bearing No.KA-23/EA-4824 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10868 MFA No. 103612 of 2015 3. Respondent No.1-the owner of the offending vehicle filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition, except for admitting the ownership of the motorcycle and the existence of an Insurance policy with respondent No.2. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.1. 4. Respondent no.2- the Insurance Company filed a statement of objections, denying the averments made in the claim petition and prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the relevant issues. 6. To substantiate his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1, examined the Doctor as PW-2 and marked 14 documents as Exs.P1 to P14. The respondents have neither led oral nor documentary evidence. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition vide - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10868 MFA No. 103612 of 2015 Judgment and award dated 30.09.2015 on the ground that the petitioner had not produced the discharge certificate. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, the petitioner filed this Appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition solely on the ground that the petitioner had not produced either the inpatient records or the discharge summary. Hence, on that ground, he submits that the petitioner has filed an application for production of additional evidence in I.A.No.1/2015. He further submits that, in view of the production of the discharge summary certificate, the Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal may be set aside and the claim petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10868 MFA No. 103612 of 2015 10. Per contra, 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 counsel for the parties. The point that arises for consideration is about the liability and compensation. 12. There is no dispute that the petitioner met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner has produced the charge sheet marked as Ex.P3. He has also produced the wound certificate marked as Ex.P4, which discloses that he sustained injuries in the road traffic accident. However, the petitioner did not produce the summary discharge while the claim petition was pending before the Tribunal. 13. The petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.1/2015, wherein he has produced the discharge summary certificate issued on 10.12.2012, which discloses - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10868 MFA No. 103612 of 2015 that the petitioner was admitted to Patil Orthopedic Hospital on 25.11.2012, undergone surgery on 26.11.2012 and was discharged on 10.12.2011 and the history mentioned as alleged with the road traffic accident at around 8.30 p.m. on 25.11.2012. 14. From the perusal of Rule 232 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, it does not prescribe that the petitioner to produce summary discharge certificate. The Tribunal, without looking into the said Rule, dismissed the claim petition, which is arbitrary and erroneous. 15. Thus, the petitioner has produced the discharge summary certificate and has also established that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and he has sustained injuries. To prove that the petitioner has sustained injuries examined the Doctor as PW-2, who stated that he had examined the petitioner clinically and radiological on 21.11.2013 and issued the disability certificate marked as - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10868 MFA No. 103612 of 2015 Ex.P10, which discloses that the petitioner has sustained injuries. 16. Though the petitioner contended that he was working as a LIC agent and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. To prove the income, the petitioner has not produced any income proof. In the absence of income proof, notional income is taken as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident is of year 2012 and the notional income is taken at Rs.6,500/- per month. The petitioner was aged about 36 years as of the date of the accident. As per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi1, 40% future prospects are to be added. 17. Considering the evidence of PW-2, this Court assesses the physical disability of the petitioner at 12% to 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10868 MFA No. 103612 of 2015 the whole body. Accordingly, the compensation is awarded under the following heads: Sl.No. Heads of Compensation Compensation awarded in Rs. 1 Loss of future Income 1,96,560/- (9,100/- x 12 x 15 x 12%) 2 Loss of laid up period 27,300/- (9100 x 3) 3 Pain and Suffering 25,000/- 4 Food, nourishment and etc. 10,000/- Attendant Charges 5,000/- 5 Loss of amenities 25,000/- 6 Medical expenses 63,000.- Total Rs. 3,51,860/- 18. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,51,860/-. 19. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The Judgment and award dated 30.09.2015 passed in MVC No.1429/2013 by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Belagavi, is set-aside. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10868 MFA No. 103612 of 2015 (iii) The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,51,860/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (iv) The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. (v) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. (vi) The amount deposit, if any, and the trial Court records be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RHR/- CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9