- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12576 MFA No. 101853 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101853 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHRI. SAGAR S/O. MARUTI PATIL, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC. LATHE MACHINE WORK (NOW NIL), R/O H.NO.351/4, BRAHMA NAGAR, MAJAGAON TQ and DIST. BELAGAVI-590002. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. GEETHA K. M @ PAWAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. SIDDHANT SWAIN S/O. NRUSINGHA CHARAN SWAIN, AGE: MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS R/O #402, 4TH FLOOR, 2ND CROSS, ANUGRAHA LAYOUT BELKAHALLI, BENGALURU-560076. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., HAVINGS ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT OFFICE NO.1, 4TH FLOOR, SHRIKRISHNA TOWERS, 14, KHANAPUR RD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI, KARNATAKA-590006. (INSURER OF HYUNDAI VERNA XI CAR NO.KA-05/ME-6130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12576 MFA No. 101853 of 2017 ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.02.2017 PASSED BY IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI IN MVC NO.568/2016 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BY HOLDING THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY IS LIABLE TO PAY THE SAME IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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 by the Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 13.02.2017 passed in M.V.C.No.568/2016 by the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Belagavi. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 25.10.2015, the petitioner in M.V.C.No.567/2016 was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/EK- 4085 along with pillion rider, i.e., the petitioner in M.V.C.No.568/2016, i.e., the appellant herein. When they reached near the accident spot, one Hyundai Verna XI car - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12576 MFA No. 101853 of 2017 bearing registration KA-05/ME-6130 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result, the rider and pillion rider sustained grievous injuries. Both the rider and pillion rider filed claim petitions in M.V.C.Nos.567/2016 and 568/2016 seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, the petitioners pray to allow the claim petitions. 3. The said claim petitions were clubbed together, and notices were issued to the respondents before the tribunal, i.e., the owner and the insurance company of the offending vehicle. Despite the service of a notice, the owner remained unrepresented and was placed ex parte before the Tribunal. 4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petitions and contended that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12576 MFA No. 101853 of 2017 accident, and there is a violation of policy conditions. It is contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the common issues. 6. The petitioner in M.V.C.No.567/2016 was examined as PW-1, the petitioner in M.V.C.No.568/2016 was examined as PW-2, examined the doctor as PW-3 and 34 documents were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-34. The respondents before the tribunal neither led any oral nor any documentary evidence. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part vide common judgment dated 13.02.2017 and awarded a compensation of Rs.5,92,300/- and Rs.30,000/- without interest in M.V.C.No.567/2016 and Rs.3,93,000/- and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12576 MFA No. 101853 of 2017 Rs.15,000/- without interest in M.V.C.No.568/2016 and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount. 8. The petitioner in M.V.C.No.568/2016, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, 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 petitioner to prove the disability, examined the doctor as PW-3, who opined that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 40% to the right lower limb wherein the Tribunal has assessed the disability of the petitioner at 10% only. She also submits that the Tribunal should have taken at least 1/3rd of the disability assessed by the doctor i.e., PW-3. She also submits that the accident occurred in 2015. In the absence of income proof, the Tribunal should have taken the notional income as per the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12576 MFA No. 101853 of 2017 schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, wherein the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.7,000/- p.m., which is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that PW-3 is not a treated doctor and the Tribunal was justified in assessing the disability at 10% and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this court. Hence, he 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. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. The petitioner has produced a charge - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12576 MFA No. 101853 of 2017 sheet marked as Ex.P-7, which discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The tribunal was justified in answering issue No. 1 in the affirmative. 15. Regarding the quantum :Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the petitioner has contended that he worked as a machine worker and used to earn more than Rs.10,000/- p. m., However, to substantiate his case, he has not produced any income proof. In the absence of income proof, the notional income has to be asserted per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident occurred in 2015. The notional income has to be taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m. The petitioner, to prove the disability, examined the doctor as PW-3, who opined that he had examined the petitioner clinically and radiologically and opined that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 40% to the right lower limb and he has issued the disability certificate marked as Ex.P-24. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12576 MFA No. 101853 of 2017 The Tribunal, considering the evidence of PW-3 has assessed the disability at 10% which is on the lower side. This Court, considering the evidence of PW-3, reassesses the disability of the petitioner at 15% to the whole body. The petitioner was about 21 years old as of the date of the accident. The multiplier applicable to the age group of the petitioner is 18. Accordingly, the loss of earning capacity of the petitioner is worked out as follows: Rs.8,000 x 12 x 18 x 15% = 2,59,200/-. 16. Considering the evidence of PW-3 and medical records, this Court reassesses the compensation under the following heads: Sl.No. HEADS AMOUNT 1. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.1,80,728/- 3. Loss of amenities Rs.25,000/- 4. Special diet, conveyance and incidental charges Rs.20,000/- 5. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.24,000/- 6. Loss of future earning capacity Rs.2,59,200/- 7. Future medical expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.5,73,928/- Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 4,08,000/- Enhanced compensation Rs. 165,928/- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12576 MFA No. 101853 of 2017 17. Thus in all, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,73,928/- as against Rs.4,08,000/-and enhanced compensation. In view of the same the point is answered accordingly. 18. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 13.02.2017 passed in M.V.C.No.568/2016 by the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Belagavi is modified. (iii) The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs. 165,928/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12576 MFA No. 101853 of 2017 (iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (v) The office is directed to transmit the records to the Tribunal. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13