- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13396 MFA No. 101309 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101309 OF 2015 BETWEEN: MANJUNATH S/O. MAHADEVAPPA KURI, AGE:22 YEARS, OCC:MASON, R/O: EWS. 104, KARNATAKA CIRCLE, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR B PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. AJIT S/O. SHANTAPPA KOTI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC:OWNER OF MAHENDRA TEMPO NO.KA-23/5934, R/O: RAMANAKOPPA, TQ:KUNDGOL, DIST:DHARWAD. 2. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD., BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI. POLICY NO. 6707003109010020 1908, VALID FROM 27/1/2010 TO 26/1/2011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G N RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.173 OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN M. V. C. NO. 157/ 2012 ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE HUBLI & ADDL. MACT HUBLI ON 17/1/2015 AND TO ENHANCE THE CLAIM OF APPELLANTS FROM RS. 25,000/- TO 3, 76,200/- BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17/1/2015 IN MVC NO. 157/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE HUBLI & ADDL. MACT HUBLI IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13396 MFA No. 101309 of 2015 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Appeal is filed by the petitioner being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No.157/2012 vide judgment and award dated 17.01.2015 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hubli (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 20.12.2010, the petitioner was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/R-2457 on the left side of the road and when he came near the accident spot, at that time, the driver of the Mahindra passenger tempo bearing registration No.KA-23/5934 being driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner has sustained injuries - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13396 MFA No. 101309 of 2015 and filed a claim petition seeking compensation. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 3. Notice was issued to the owner of the offending vehicle. Despite service of notice, he remained unrepresented and was placed exparte. 4. The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident and accordingly prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company. 5. The Tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The petitioner to substantiate his case examined himself as PW.1, examined the Doctor as PW.2 and marked 81 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-81. In rebuttal, the Administrative Officer of the insurance company was examined as RW.1 and marked two documents as Exs.R.1 and R-2. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13396 MFA No. 101309 of 2015 7. The Tribunal after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition in part with costs and held that respondents 1 and 2 i.e., the owner and the insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay 75% of the compensation amount out of total compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till its realization. 8. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed this appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the insurance company. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He submits that he has examined the Doctor as PW.2, who opined that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability at 13%, however, the Tribunal has not considered the evidence of PW.2 and concluded that the injuries are simple in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13396 MFA No. 101309 of 2015 nature. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation. 14. Regarding quantum of compensation: There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the petitioner having suffered injuries in the road traffic accident. The petitioner has produced the true copy of the charge sheet marked as Ex.P-5 which is filed against the driver of the offending vehicle and the rider of the motorcycle. Thus, the petitioner has proved that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13396 MFA No. 101309 of 2015 vehicle to larger extent. The petitioner to prove the disability examined the Doctor as PW.2, who has deposed that he has examined the petitioner clinically and radiologically and opined that the petitioner has suffered a disability to an extent of 13% to the whole body. During cross-examination of PW.2, he has stated that the injured took treatment initially at Shiggaon Hospital and then at KIMS Hospital, Hubballi and has seen the wound certificate issued by the Shiggaon Hospital wherein it is mentioned that the injuries are simple in nature. However, he has stated that it is wrong. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, the Tribunal has awarded a global compensation of Rs.25,000/- which is on the lower side. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to a global compensation of Rs.60,000/-. 15. In view of the above discussion, the point regarding quantum is answered accordingly. 16. Further insofar as regarding apportionment of liability is concerned, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tempo bearing - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13396 MFA No. 101309 of 2015 registration No.KA.23/5934 and the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/R.2457. Therefore, the Tribunal has apportioned the liability in the ratio of 75:25 and saddled 75% liability on the driver of the Mahindra tempo and 25% on the rider of the motorcycle. The Tribunal was justified in apportioning the liability. I do not find any error regarding the apportionment of the liability. 17. Thus, in view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 17.01.2015 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hubli, in MVC No.157/2012 is modified. The petitioner is entitled to a global compensation of Rs.60,000/-. iii. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., the owner and the insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay 75% of the compensation of Rs.60,000/- i.e. Rs.45,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13396 MFA No. 101309 of 2015 per annum from the date of the petition till its realization. iv. The insurance company is directed to deposit Rs.45,000/- with accrued interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Registry is directed to transmit the TCR to the Tribunal forthwith. Draw the award accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT:ANB