- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12399 MFA No. 101492 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101492 OF 2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHRI. KUMAR MADIWALAPPA PENTED, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER (NIL), R/O: HOSUR, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591118. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. GURUKUMAR V.A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. ASALM ABDULGANI MULLA, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: YAKKUNDI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591111. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, NO.6, 1ST FLOOR, "MUJAWAR ARCADE", NEHRU NAGAR, P.B ROAD, BELAGAVI-590010. KARNATAKA. 3. SHRI. DUNDAPPA TAKKAPPA ARALIKATTI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS, R/O: INCHAL, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591111. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12399 MFA No. 101492 of 2018 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, MERCHANTS BANK BUILDING, S.R. CIRCLE, BAILHONGAL-591102, DIST: BELAGAVI. KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. S.S. JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC. 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE LOWER COURT RECORDS IN MVC NO.522/2015 DATED 28.11.2017 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF “IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T BAILHONGAL AT: BAILHONGAL” AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD FROM RS.1,30,412/- TO RS. 8,00,000/- IN MVC NO. 522/2015 DATED 28.11.2017 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF “IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T. BAILHONGAL AT BAILHONGAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V Act’ for short) by the petitioner being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal vide - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12399 MFA No. 101492 of 2018 judgment dated 28.11.2017 in MVC No.522/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The petitioner was working as a driver under the employment of respondent No.3 i.e., TATA Ace bearing registration No. KA-24/4530. On 28.11.2014, while he was discharging his duty as a driver of respondent No.3, met with an accident because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor and Trailer bearing reg. nos. KA- 24/TA6821, KA-24/TA-6822 and KA-24/TA-6823, who collided with the TATA Ace bearing registration No. KA- 24/4530 and the petitioner sustained the grievous injuries. He has spent a huge amount towards the medical and other expenses. Hence, filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act. 3. Notice was issued and respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 appeared through their respective counsels and filed the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12399 MFA No. 101492 of 2018 statement of objections. Despite of the service of notice, respondent no.3 remained unrepresented and was placed exparte. 4. Respondent No.2-the insurance company filed a statement of objections contending the involvement of the tractor bearing KA-24/TA-6821 and trailer bearing No.KA- 24/TA-6822, No. KA-24/TA-6823 are not insured with Respondent No.2-the insurance company. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No. 2. 5. Respondent No.4 – the Insurance Company of TATA Ace, filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the TATA Ace-the petitioner did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.4. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12399 MFA No. 101492 of 2018 6. The tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties framed the relevant issues. 7. The petitioner to substantiate his case examined himself as PW.1, examined the doctor as PW.2 and marked 39 documents as Exs.P1 to P39. 8. The officer of respondent No.2 was examined as RW.1, the officer of respondent no. 4 was examined as RW2 and marked 4 documents as Ex. R1 to R4. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a compensation of ₹ 1,30,412/- with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of petition till realisation from respondent No.2. 9. The claim petition against respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 was dismissed and directed respondent No. 2 to deposit the compensation amount within statutory period as required under Section 168-B of the MV Act. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12399 MFA No. 101492 of 2018 10. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the disability assessed by the tribunal has filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the insurance company. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner examined the treated doctor as PW.2, who has opined that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 40%, wherein the tribunal has taken the disability at 8%, which is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to enhance the disability. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the tribunal was justified in assessing the disability at 8% which is just and proper and do not call for any interference. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12399 MFA No. 101492 of 2018 14. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 15. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of accident and injuries sustained by the petitioner. The petitioner to prove the disability examined the doctor as PW.2, who is a treated doctor and issued the disability certificate marked as Ex.P7. He has deposed that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 40% to the whole body, but the tribunal has taken the disability at 8% which is on the lower side. This court considering the evidence of PW.2 and wound certificate marked as Ex.P6 and disability certificate at Ex.P7, re-assessed the disability and enhance the disability from 8% to 25%. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of ₹1,80,000/- (i.e., 40,000/- X 18X 25%) under the heads of ‘loss of future income’. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12399 MFA No. 101492 of 2018 16. The compensation awarded by the tribunal under the other heads are just and proper and do not call for any interference. 17. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of ₹2,52,812/- (i.e., 49,212+1,80,000+ 20,000+3,600) as against ₹1,30,412/- awarded by the tribunal. 18. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation of (₹2,52,812- 1,30,412) ₹1,22,400/-. 19. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and award passed in MVC No.522 of 2015 dated 28.11.2017 is modified. iii. The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of ₹1,22,400/- with interest - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12399 MFA No. 101492 of 2018 @ 6% p.a, from the date of petition till its realisation. iv. Respondent No.2-the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest within 8 weeks. v. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 - Insurance Company has already deposited the Award amount with the accrued interest before the tribunal. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27