- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9987 MFA No. 23100 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23100 OF 2013 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. THE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHAWAPUR, HUBBALLI R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER SRI. RAGHUVEER N. NAYAK …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADV) AND: 1. SRI. SHANKARAPPA S/O NAGAPPA NELOGAL AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MOTEBENNUR, TQ: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI.. 2. SRI. SHANMUKAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA BALLARI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.MOTEBENNUR, TQ: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI (OWNER OF THE TT UNIT NO. KA-27/TA-453 AND T-1798) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRIYUTHS. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR AND VINUTA M. KHANNUR, ADVS) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14-02-2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.229/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, RANEBENNUR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.7,38,765/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.22 13:00:52 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9987 MFA No. 23100 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Appeal is filed by the insurance company, challenging the judgment and award dated 14.02.2013 in M.V.C.No.229/2009 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Ranebennur. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation on the ground that he met with an accident on 13.06.2008, and sustained the grievous injuries. It is contended that the claimant suffered permanent physical disability and future loss of income. Hence, prayed to allow the claim petition. 3. A notice was issued to the respondents. Despite the service of notice, respondent No.1 was unrepresented and placed exparte. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9987 MFA No. 23100 of 2013 4. Respondent No.2-insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the claimant was travelling in the offending vehicle to unload the fertiliser and the risk of the claimant is not covered under the policy. It is also contended that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed issues. 6. The claimant to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined one witness as PW-2 and the doctor as PW-3 and marked 28 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-28. In rebuttal, Respondent No.2-insurance company, examined two doctors as RW-1 and RW-2, its officials as RW-3 to 5 and marked 4 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-4. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9987 MFA No. 23100 of 2013 and held that the claimant is entitled to of Rs.7,38,765/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation and respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and directed respondent No.2 the-insurance company to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of the order. The insurance company, aggrieved by the judgment and award, filed this appeal. 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the R2-the Insurance Company and the learned counsel for respondent No.1 the owner of the offending vehicle. 9. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2- insurance company submits that the accident occurred due to the electrocution and not occurred due to a road traffic accident. To prove the defence ,examined witnesses as RW-3 to RW-5. She submits that the said aspect was not appreciated by the Tribunal and committed an error in fastening the liability on the insurance company. She also - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9987 MFA No. 23100 of 2013 submits that though the claimant examined a doctor as PW-3 who has assessed the disability to the extent of 33.33%, however, the insurance company has examined the doctors as RW-1 and RW-2 who have opined that the claimant has suffered a disability to the extent of 15%. The Tribunal has assessed the disability at 33.33% which is on the higher side. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the appeal. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and a charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal was justified in recording its finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and not due to the electrocution. She also submits that to prove the disability, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-3, who has opined that the claimant has suffered disability to the extent of 33.33% and the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9987 MFA No. 23100 of 2013 Tribunal was justified in considering the same. She also submits that the claimant was working as agriculturist under PW-2 and he used to get a monthly income of Rs.6,000/- i.e., he was getting Rs.200/- per day. To prove that the claimant was working under PW-2, he has produced a document at Ex.P-24 i.e., the salary certificate and the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/-, which is just and proper and does not call for any interference. On these grounds, she prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 12. The points that would arise for consideration are with regard to the liability and the quantum of compensation. Regarding liability: 13. There is no dispute that the claimant had sustained injuries in the road traffic accident. To prove - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9987 MFA No. 23100 of 2013 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the claimant has produced a charge sheet at Ex.P-6. The Insurance Company has not placed any records to establish that claimant sustained Insurance due to electrocution. At the cost of repetition, admittedly the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. Thus the claimant proved that he had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident and accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and not due to electrocution. Regarding quantum of compensation: 14. Insofar as disability is concerned, the claimant, to prove that he has suffered disability, he has produced Ex.P-4, the wound certificate and disability certificate marked as Ex.P-25. PW-3 has issued a disability certificate at Ex.P25. He deposed that he has examined the claimant and opined that the claimant has suffered - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9987 MFA No. 23100 of 2013 disability at 33.33%. In rebuttal, the insurance company has examined two doctors as RW-1 and RW-2. Both doctors have opined that the claimant has suffered disability of 15%. Thus, the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, evidence of PW-3, RW-1 and RW-2 and the records i.e., disability certificate and the wound certificate, this Court re-assess the disability at 30%. 15. The claimant has stated that he was working as coolie under PW-2 and he was getting a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. To prove that the claimant was getting a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-, he has produced salary certificate, marked at Ex.P-24 which discloses that PW-2 was paying monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- and claimant also examined the author of Ex.P-24 who has deposed that he used to pay the salary of Rs.6,000/- to the claimant. Thus, the Tribunal, considering Ex.P-24 and the evidence of PW-2, who is the employer of the claimant has rightly - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9987 MFA No. 23100 of 2013 assessed the notional income of Rs.6,000/- and granted compensation under the following heads: A. PECUNIARY LOSS Rs. B. NON FECUNIARY LOSS Rs. 1. Future Loss of Earning capacity & Income AC:- 2010KARNATAKA- PAGE-0760 4,31,946 1. Pain & Sufferings Acci CR-2011- KARNATAKA-PAGE- 0464 25,000 2. Medical & Incidental Expenditures Present AC-2003-SUPREME COURT-PAGE-0012 0,81,819 2 Loss of Amenities Comforts & Happiness Acci CR- 2011-KARNATAKA- PAGE-0464 25,000 3. Medical & Incidental Expenditures Future ACI-2003-SUPREME COURT-PAGE-0012 0,50,000 3. Loss of expectancy of Life 25,000 4. Medical Attendance Charges 0,30,000 4. Disfiguration 0,25,000 5. Transportation 0,20,000 5. Loss of Marriage Prospects 0,25,000 Total 6,13,765 Total 1,25,000 A. Rs. 06,13,765/- + B. Rs. 1,25,000/- Grand total Rs.7,38,765/- 16. As discussed above, this Court has re-assessed the permanent disability of the claimant as 30%. Hence, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9987 MFA No. 23100 of 2013 the compensation towards loss of future earning capacity is re-calculated as under: Rs.6,000 X 12 X 18 X 30% = 3,88,800/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.6,95,619/-. 17. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards other heads is undisturbed. 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 14.02.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.229/2009, by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Ranebennur, is modified. (iii) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from 7,38,765/- to Rs.6,95,619/-. (iv) The appellant-insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9987 MFA No. 23100 of 2013 interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (v) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal. (vi) The office is directed to transmit the records. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA CT: BSB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3