- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11472-DB MFA No. 103692 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101137 of 2017 MFA No. 103762 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL M.F.A. NO.103692 OF 2017 (MV-I) C/W. M.F.A. NO.101137 OF 2017 (MV-I) M.F.A. NO.103762 OF 2017 (MV-I) IN MFA NO. 103692/2017 BETWEEN: MANJUNATH S/O. SHIVABASAPPA KOTER, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRI. & MASON, R/O. BHOVIGALLI, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HANUMANTAPPA S/O. PUTTAPPA CHIKKERI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. CHEERANAHALLI, PIN-581104, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., A.M. ARKED COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, C.G. HOSPITAL, VIDYARTHI BHAVAN ROAD, DAVANAGERE, DIST: DAVANAGERE, PIN-577001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 SERVED) Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11472-DB MFA No. 103692 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101137 of 2017 MFA No. 103762 of 2017 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, HANGAL IN MVC NO.152/2012 DATED 02.11.2016 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN MFA NO.101137/2017 BETWEEN: SHRI PUTTAPPA S/O. BASAPPA KATTIMANI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRI. & PAN SHOP, NOW NIL, R/O. SOMAWARPET, HANGAL, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HANUMANTAPPA S/O. PUTTAPPA CHIKKERI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. CHEERANAHALLI, PIN-581104, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., A. M. ARKED COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, C. G. HOSPITAL, VIDYARTHI BHAVAN ROAD, DAVANAGERE, DIST: DAVANAGERE, PIN-577001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL FIX THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, HANGAL, IN MVC NO.139/2012 DATED 02.11.2016, AND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11472-DB MFA No. 103692 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101137 of 2017 MFA No. 103762 of 2017 CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN MFA NO.103762/2017 BETWEEN: PRAKASH S/O. VIRUPAXAPPA KITTUR, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRI. & TAILOR, R/O. SOMAWARPET, HANGAL, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HANUMANTAPPA S/O. PUTTAPPA CHIKKERI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. CHEERANAHALLI, PIN-581104, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., A. M. ARKED COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, C. G. HOSPITAL, VIDYARTHI BHAVAN ROAD, DAVANAGERE, DIST: DAVANAGERE, PIN-577001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, HANGAL, IN MVC NO.153/2012 DATED 02.11.2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11472-DB MFA No. 103692 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101137 of 2017 MFA No. 103762 of 2017 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) These appeals have been filed by the injured/claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 02.11.2016 passed in MVC.Nos.139/2012, 152/2012 and 153/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Hangal (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that the appellants filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by them in a road accident dated 07.10.2011. It is averred that the claimants were proceeding on motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-27-L-5478 and the rider of the motor cycle rode the same by following traffic rules. When they reached near Hosalli Village, the driver of a tempo trax bearing Reg.No.KA-16-P-2929 drove the vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle, resulting in a serious accident. It is further averred that the rider of the motor cycle and other two pillion riders - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11472-DB MFA No. 103692 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101137 of 2017 MFA No. 103762 of 2017 sustained grievous injuries, and they were provided treatment at District Government Hospital at Haveri and thereafter, at KIMS Hospital, Hubballi. It is also averred that the claimants sustained permanent physical disability due to the accident, they lost happiness, suffered financial loss and incurred substantial amount towards the treatment. Accordingly, they sought an award of compensation for the damages suffered by them in the road accident. 3. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petitions. They denied the age, income, avocation and injuries suffered by the claimants and contended that no accident had occurred to the bike in question on 07.10.2011. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties. Claimants examined PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P54. The respondent did not adduce oral evidence but with the consent got marked Ex.R1. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the claimants have failed to establish that there was an accident to the bike in which they were proceeding and that they had filed the false claim petitions. Consequently, Tribunal proceeded to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11472-DB MFA No. 103692 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101137 of 2017 MFA No. 103762 of 2017 dismiss the claim petitions. Being aggrieved, the claimants are in appeal. 4. Sri.R.H.Angadi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record. It is submitted that the jurisdictional police filed the charge sheet stating that the driver of the tempo trax was negligent and caused the accident in question. However, the Tribunal without any justifiable reasons refused to take note of the charge sheet material only on the ground that charge sheet was filed six months after the registration of the complaint. It is further submitted that the jurisdictional police seized the vehicle involved in the accident as per Ex.P4 and in the further statement of the complainant, it was clearly stated about the involvement of the vehicle in question. It is also submitted that the MVA report at Ex.P8 pertaining to tempo trax indicates that the said vehicle suffered damage due to a road traffic accident and the driver of the said vehicle had also admitted the guilt and paid the fine amount in criminal proceedings and these aspects have not been appreciated by the Tribunal in its proper - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11472-DB MFA No. 103692 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101137 of 2017 MFA No. 103762 of 2017 perspective which has resulted in dismissal of the claim petitions. Hence, he seeks to allow the claim petitions by awarding just compensation to each of the claimants based on the evidence available on record. 5. Per contra, Sri. G.N.Raichur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that there is no evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the tempo trax was involved in the accident. It is submitted that the claimants ought to have examined the investigation officer to prove the aspect of accident and the negligence of the driver of tempo trax. In the absence of examining the investigation officer, it would be difficult to come to conclusion that the tempo trax vehicle which was insured with the respondent/Insurance Company, has caused the accident solely on the basis of the charge sheet material. It is further submitted that the claimants have not examined any independent witness to substantiate that the accident is caused by the tempo trax vehicle. It is also submitted that the two wheeler was ridden by Sri.Manjunath and there were two pillion riders on the motor cycle and the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11472-DB MFA No. 103692 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101137 of 2017 MFA No. 103762 of 2017 Tribunal taking note of the same has rightly drawn the inference that the accident may have been caused due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle as there is no space to sit three persons on the motor cycle. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 6. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company and meticulously perused the appeal papers and the original records of the Tribunal. We have given our anxious considerations to the submissions advanced on both the sides. 7. The following points that would arise for our consideration in these appeals are: i. Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim petitions? ii. If the claim petitions are allowed, how much quantum of compensation would be entitled by the claimants? 8. Answer to the above points would be in the “affirmative” for the following reasons: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11472-DB MFA No. 103692 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101137 of 2017 MFA No. 103762 of 2017 9. The three claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by the claimants in a road accident dated 07.10.2011. The Tribunal while answering the points raised for consideration, answered that there is a delay of six months in filing the charge sheet and also recorded that three persons/claimants were proceeding on the motorcycle and due to the restricted movement of the leg of the rider, he might not have been able to control the motorcycle and which could have resulted in an accident. Further, the Tribunal relied on the cross-examination of the claimants and recorded the finding that road humps had existed at the spot. Referring to Panchanama and hand sketch at Exs.P3 and R1, the Tribunal presumed that the rider-Manjunath rode the bike at a high speed and he might have lost control near the hump and fell down and thereby caused injuries to them. The Tribunal further held that in the complaint, the injured Sri.Putappa has not mentioned the vehicle number or at least he would have stated tahat the the accident was caused by a tempo trax. In such an event, the Tribunal comes to conclusion that the tempo trax has - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11472-DB MFA No. 103692 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101137 of 2017 MFA No. 103762 of 2017 not caused the accident in question and proceeded to dismiss the claim petition. 10. The evidence on record indicates that the accident in question took place on 07.10.2011 at about 2.00 a.m. and the first information about the accident was given by Sri.Puttappa- one of the claimants. The jurisdictional police registered the incident in Crime No.187/2011 at about 7.30 p.m., on the same day. On perusal of the complaint/information at Ex.P2 indicates that the complainant at the earliest stage has already informed that a four wheeler dashed the motorcycle and caused the accident. Based on such information, the jurisdictional police registered the FIR which is marked as Ex.P1 and conducted detailed investigation and they have recorded the further statement of the complainant which is marked as Ex.P12. The vehicle involved in the accident was seized under panchanama at Exs.P3 and P4. The investigation officer collected the wound certificates from the District Hospital, Haveri where the claimants were provided initial treatment immediately after the accident. The said documents are marked as Exs.P5, P19 and P32. The Ex.P5 indicates that claimant-Puttappa was brought to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11472-DB MFA No. 103692 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101137 of 2017 MFA No. 103762 of 2017 the Hospital by 108 Ambulance and history of the patient is written as RTA on 07.10.2011 at 2.00 a.m. The document also indicates that the patient was brought to the Hospital at 03.05 a.m., and he suffered injuries therein. The jurisdictional police secured the motor vehicle accident report of the two wheeler and tempo trax which are marked as Exs.P7 and P8. Ex.P8 - the MVA report indicates that the “right side portion of front show grill pressed inwards and damaged”. The investigation officer has also recorded the statement of the driver of the offending vehicle where he admits to the accident in question. Based on the investigation material, the jurisdictional police filed a charge sheet against the driver of the tempo trax for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC and 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act. 11. The records indicate that the driver of the tempo trax has pleaded his guilt during the proceedings before the criminal Court and paid the fine amount for the offences committed. The aforesaid evidence clearly demonstrates that the accident in question had occurred on 07.10.2011 at about 2:00 a.m., due to the rash and negligent driving of tempo trax by its driver. The - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11472-DB MFA No. 103692 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101137 of 2017 MFA No. 103762 of 2017 injured Sri.Puttappa, himself has deposed before the Tribunal that the driver of the tempo trax drove the same at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle and caused the accident. It is not expected that the claimants should also examine independent witness to demonstrate the accident, involvement of the vehicle and negligence of the driver of the tempo trax as the accident in question occurred at 02.00 a.m. The primary burden of proving the accident, negligence of the driver of the tempo trax and involvement of the tempo tax have been discharged by the claimants by oral and documentary evidence. The contention of the insurance company is that the claimants ought to have examined the investigation officer and they would have cross-examined him to extract the truth. Such a contention has no merit as the charge sheet, mahazar, further statement of the complainant and MVA reports are marked through the claimants and if the respondent-insurance company doubts the veracity of the charge sheet material, nothing has prevented them from summoning the investigation officer. We also cannot ignore the fact that the insurance company has not adduced any evidence before the Tribunal. As we have already meticulously examined the Exs.P1 to P13 and the oral testimony - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11472-DB MFA No. 103692 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101137 of 2017 MFA No. 103762 of 2017 of PWs1 to 3 which clearly demonstrates that due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tempo trax bearing Reg.No.KA-16-P-2929, the accident was caused. The Tribunal without any justifiable reasons came to the conclusion that the claimants have failed to connect the injuries and the accident with the vehicle involved in the accident. The observation of the Tribunal that there was a lapse of six months in filing a charge sheet cannot be a ground to disbelieve the entire evidence on record and hold that the claimants have failed to prove the accident and the aspect of negligence. 12. The Tribunal’s assumption that there were three persons on the motorcycle may be a cause for accident is without any evidence and liable to be interfered in these appeals. The charge sheet material and the cross examination of PWs.1 to 3 indicate that the claimant Sri.Manjunath was riding the motor cycle and the other claimants Sri.Puttappa and Sri.Prakash were the pillion riders. The motor cycle rode by Sri.Manjunath was a TVS star city and the said vehicle has sitting capacity of two persons. However, there were three persons on the said motor cycle on the date of accident. In the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11472-DB MFA No. 103692 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101137 of 2017 MFA No. 103762 of 2017 cross examination, the claimants were not clear with regard to the aspect of negligence by the rider of the motor cycle. Hence, considering the cross examination of PWs.1 to 3 and other evidence available on record, we are of the considered view that the rider of the motor cycle has contributed to the accident in question to the extent of 10% and the negligence of the tempo trax would be 90% and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the said extent. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants in all fairness, concedes to consider the contributory negligence of the claimants and also concedes to consider the aforesaid extent of apportionment of the liability. Taking note of his submission, we saddle 90% liability on the insurance company. The aforesaid finding is based on the concession of the appellants’/claimants’ counsel. For the aforementioned reasons, we answer point No.1 in the ‘affirmative’ holding that the accident in question was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-16-P-2929 and the said vehicle is insured with the respondent No.2 and is liable to make good of 90% of the total compensation. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11472-DB MFA No. 103692 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101137 of 2017 MFA No. 103762 of 2017 13. Insofar as entitlement of compensation, this Court has an option to remand the matter back to the Tribunal to determine the compensation. However, we are not inclined to do so, as the accident in question is of the year 2011 and claimants have not received any compensation for nearly 14 years. Hence, it would be just and appropriate to determine the compensation based on the oral and documentary evidence on record. 14. In MVC No.139/2012, the claimant -Sri.Puttappa who is a pillion rider sustained injuries in the road traffic accident. The injured was aged about 28 years. As per the claim petition, his occupation was agriculture and running a pan shop business and earning Rs.8000/- per month. The evidence on record indicates that the injured was initially provided treatment at District Hospital, Haveri and thereafter KIMS Hospital, Hubballi and in other places. Admittedly, the claimant has not produced any evidence in support of his earnings, in the absence of same, we notionally assess his income at Rs.6000/- per month placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11472-DB MFA No. 103692 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101137 of 2017 MFA No. 103762 of 2017 evidence of PW4 demonstrate that the claimant sustained disability to the extent of 35% to a particular limb and considering the same and taking note of the injuries suffered and treatment provided, we assess the disability of the claimant at 12% to the whole body for the purpose of determining compensation. The medical expense is awarded based on the actual bills available on record. The appropriate multiplier would be ‘17’. Thus, loss of future income due to disability is recomputed as under: Rs.6,000 x 12x 17 x 12% =Rs.1,46,880/- 15. Thus, in all, the claimant shall be entitled to total compensation under the following heads: 1. Loss of future income 1,46,880/- 2. Pain and suffering 40,000/- 3. Miscellaneous expenses, Transportation, Food, Nourishment and attendant charges 10,000/- 4. Loss of amenities of life 40,000/- 5. Medical expenses 2,620/- 6. Loss of income during laid-up period 18,000/- Total 2,57,500/- Less: 10% contributory negligence 25,750/- Total Compensation 2,31,750/- 16. In MVC No.152/2012, the claimant -Sri.Manjunath who is a rider of the motorcycle sustained injuries in the road traffic accident. The injured was aged about 28 years at the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11472-DB MFA No. 103692 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101137 of 2017 MFA No. 103762 of 2017 time of accident as per the claim petition. The injured/claimant is an agriculturist and a mason by avocation and earning Rs.8000/- per month. The evidence on record indicates that the injured was provided treatment at multiple Hospitals. Admittedly, the claimant has not produced any document in support of his earnings and in the absence of the same, we notionally assess his income at Rs.6000/- per month placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The evidence of PW4 demonstrates that the claimant sustained disability to the extent of 70% to a particular limb. The medical records also indicate that he underwent surgery for fracture of right tibia and fibula proximal III and crush injury to right foot. Considering the same and taking note of the fact that the claimant has suffered a grievous injury to right upper leg on the right foot, he was provided treatment at KIMS hospital Hubballi, we reassess the disability of the claimant at 24% to the whole body for the purpose of determination of compensation. The appropriate multiplier would be ’17’ as the deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of accident. The medical expense is awarded - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11472-DB MFA No. 103692 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101137 of 2017 MFA No. 103762 of 2017 based on the actual bills available on record. Thus, loss of future income due to disability is recomputed as under: Rs.6,000 x 12x 17 x 24% =Rs.2,93,760/- 17. Thus, in all, the claimant shall be entitled to modified compensation under the following heads: 1. Loss of future income 2,93,760/- 2. Pain and suffering 40,000/- 3. Miscellaneous expenses, Transportation, Food, Nourishment and attendant charges 10,000/- 4. Loss of amenities of life 40,000/- 5. Medical expenses 21,074/- 7. Loss of income during laid-up period (6000x3) 18,000/- Total 4,22,834/- Less: 10% contributory negligence 42,283/- Total Compensation 3,80,551/- 18. In MVC No.153/2012, the claimant -Sri.Prakash who is a pillion rider of the motorcycle sustained injuries in the road traffic accident. The injured was aged about 31 years at the time of accident as per the claim petition. The injured/claimant is an agriculturist and Tailor by avocation and was earning Rs.8000/- per month. The evidence on record indicates that the injured was provided treatment at different Hospitals. Admittedly, the claimant has not produced any - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11472-DB MFA No. 103692 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101137 of 2017 MFA No. 103762 of 2017 document in support of his earnings, in the absence of the same, we notionally assess his income at Rs.6000/- per month placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The evidence of PW4 demonstrate that the claimant sustained disability to the extent of 55% to a particular limb. Considering the same and taking note of the fact that the claimant suffered injury to his right thigh, right knee, right upper leg and underwent surgery for the supracondylar fracture femur right and there are internal fixation with a plate and screw, we reassess the disability of the claimant at 19% to the whole body for the purpose of determination of compensation. The appropriate multiplier would be ’16’ as the deceased was aged about 31 years at the time of accident. The medical expense is awarded based on the actual bills available on record. Thus, loss of future income due to disability is recomputed as under: Rs.6,000 x 12x 16 x 19% =Rs.2,18,880/- 19. Thus, in all, the claimant shall be entitled to modified compensation under the following heads: - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11472-DB MFA No. 103692 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101137 of 2017 MFA No. 103762 of 2017 1. Loss of future income 2,18,880/- 2. Pain and suffering 40,000/- 3. Miscellaneous expenses, Transportation, Food, Nourishment and attendant charges 10,000/- 4. Loss of amenities of life 40,000/- 5. Medical expenses 12,947/- 7. Loss of income during laid-up period (6000 x 3) 18,000/- Total 3,39,827/- Less: 10% contributory negligence 33,983/- Total Compensation 3,05,844/- 20. For the aforementioned reasons we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeals are allowed in part. ii. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal in MVC.No.139/2012 dated 02.11.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Hangal is hereby set aside and the claimant is entitled to total compensation of 2,31,750/- (2,57,500 - 10%). iii. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal in MVC.No.152/2012 dated 02.11.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Hangal is hereby set aside and the claimant is entitled to total compensation of 3,80,551/- (4,22,834 -10%). - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11472-DB MFA No. 103692 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101137 of 2017 MFA No. 103762 of 2017 iv. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal in MVC.No.153/2012 dated 02.11.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Hangal is hereby set aside and the claimant is entitled to total compensation of 3,05,844/- (3,39,827 – 10%). v. The compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. vi. The insurance company shall deposit the aforesaid compensation amount along with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. vii. Registry shall transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith. viii. Draw modified award accordingly. ix. No order as to costs. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE ABK, RKM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61