- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11984 MFA No. 104050 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101388 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104050 OF 2017 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101388 OF 2018 IN MFA NO.104050 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ARIHANT PLAZA, 2ND FLOOR, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, THROUGH THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SOUNDATTI-591126, DIST: BELAGAVI. REP BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S K KAYAKAMATH, ADV) AND: 1. KALAWATI @ KALLAWWA W/O SHIVANAND HORAKERI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: VEGITABLE VENDOR, R/O: DHADENAGARKOPPA, TQ: SOUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591126. 2. SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O HONNAPPA ASUNDI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HOOLI, TQ: SOUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591126. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANAND D. BAGEWADI, ADV FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC. 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.2813/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, SAUNDATTI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.6,34,407/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11984 MFA No. 104050 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101388 of 2018 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, IN MFA NO. 101388 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ARIHANT PLAZA, 2ND FLOOR, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, THROUGH THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SOUNDATTI-591126, DIST: BELAGAVI. NOW REP BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S K KAYAKAMATH, ADV) AND: 1. NETRAVATI W/O MANJUNATH UDANASHETTI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: VEGITABLE VENDOR, R/O: DHODWAD, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591102. 2. SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O HONNAPPA ASUNDI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HOOLI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591126. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 & R2 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.2814/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, SAUNDATTI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.3,69,084/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11984 MFA No. 104050 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101388 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT The Insurance Company has filed an appeal in M.F.A.No.104050/2017 challenging the judgment and award dated 15.03.2017 passed in M.V.C.No.2813/2015 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Saundatti and the appeal in M.F.A.No.101388/2018 is also filed by the Insurance company filed challenging the judgment and award dated 12.01.2018 passed in M.V.C. No.2814/2015 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Saundatti. 2. As these appeals arise out of the same accident, these are taken up together for a common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows: On 12.05.2015, the petitioners in both the cases were travelling in Ape 3W rickshaw bearing registration No.KA- 24/7134. At about 16.30 hours, near the accident spot, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11984 MFA No. 104050 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101388 of 2018 driver of the vehicle lost his control over the vehicle and toppled down the vehicle and caused the accident. Due to the impact, the petitioners sustained grievous injuries. The petitioners filed separate claim petitions M.V.C.Nos.2813/2015 and 2814/2015 seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petitions. 4. A notice was issued to the owner of the offending vehicle in both claim petitions. Despite the service of a notice, the owner remained unrepresented, and was placed exparte in both the claim petitions. 5. The Insurance Company filed separate statement of objections in both the claim petitions, denying the averments made in the claim petitions, and contended that the owner of the offending vehicle had violated the terms and conditions, and exceptions of the policy. The driver of the vehicle had not complied with the traffic rules and regulations and was not holding a valid and effective driving - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11984 MFA No. 104050 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101388 of 2018 license as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petitions. 6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues in both cases. 7. The petitioner in M.V.C.No.2813/2015 was examined as PW-1, examined the doctor as PW-2 and marked 66 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-66. The Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company was examined as RW 1, and marked one document as Ex.R-1. 8. The petitioner in M.V.C.No.2814/2015 was examined as PW-1, examined the doctor as PW-2 and marked 22 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-22. The Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company was examined as RW-1 and marked 2 documents as Exs.R-1 and R-2. 9. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11984 MFA No. 104050 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101388 of 2018 M.V.C.No.2813/2015 vide judgment and award dated 15.03.2017, and awarded a compensation of Rs.6,34,407/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization, and held that the respondents i.e., the owner and the insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner. 10. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in M.V.C.No.2814/2015 in part, vide judgment and award dated 12.01.2018 and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,69,084/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and held that respondents No.1 and 2 before the Tribunal i.e., the owner and Insurance Company are jointly and severally able to pay the compensation amount and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the same. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11984 MFA No. 104050 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101388 of 2018 11. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed these appeals. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the petitioner in M.F.A.No.104050/2017. A notice was issued to the petitioner in M.F.A.No.101388/2018. Despite the service of notice, none appeared for the petitioner in the said appeal. 13. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the petitioner in M.F.A.No.104050/2018 has not produced any income proof. In the absence of income proof, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the petitioner in MVC NO. 2813 /2015 (M.F.A.No.104050/2017) at Rs.10,000/- p.m., which is on the higher side. He submits that the accident occurred in 2015, and as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, the notional income should have been taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC NO. 2814/2015 (M.F.A.No.101388/2018) is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11984 MFA No. 104050 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101388 of 2018 on the higher side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeals. 14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner in MVC No. 2813/2015 (M.F.A.No.104050/2017) supported the impugned judgment and award, and he submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeals. 15. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 16. The point that would arise for consideration in these appeals is regarding the quantum of compensation. Regarding quantum of compensation: 17. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and injuries sustained by the petitioners in the road traffic accident. Insofar as the quantum of compensation in M.V.C.No.2813/2015 is concerned, the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11984 MFA No. 104050 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101388 of 2018 petitioner contended that she was a vegetable vendor and used to earn more than Rs.20,000/- p.m. To substantiate the case of the petitioner i.e., regarding the income, she has not produced any income proof. In the absence of income proof, the Tribunal should have taken the notional income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. The Tribunal has taken the notional monthly income at Rs.10,000/- p.m., which is on the higher side and the same requires to be reduced. Accordingly, this Court reassesses the monthly income of the petitioner in MVC No. 2813/2015 (M.F.A.No.104050/2017) at Rs.8,000/- p.m. The petitioner was aged about 35 years old as of the date of the accident, and the multiplier applicable to the age group of the petitioner is 16. Accordingly, the loss of future earning capacity of the petitioner is calculated as follows: Rs.8,000 x 12 x 16x 14% =2,15,040/- 18. Thus, the petitioner in M.V.C.No.2813/2015 is entitled to compensation under the head loss of future - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11984 MFA No. 104050 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101388 of 2018 earning capacity at Rs.2,15,040/- as against Rs.2,68,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was justified in awarding the compensation under the other heads, and I concur with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads. Hence, the petitioner in MVC NO. 2813/2015 (M.F.A.No.104050/2017) is entitled to compensation at Rs.5,80,647/- as against Rs.6,34,407/- awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced by Rs.53,760/-. 19. Insofar as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.2814/2015 is concerned, the Tribunal has taken the notional income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority and considering the evidence of PW-2 who is the doctor, has rightly awarded the compensation. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.2814/2015. In view of the same, the point regarding quantum is answered accordingly. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11984 MFA No. 104050 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101388 of 2018 20. In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) M.F.A.No.101388/2018 is hereby dismissed. (ii) The judgment and award dated 12.01.2018 passed in M.V.C. No.2814/2015 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Saundatti, is hereby confirmed. (iii) M.F.A.No.104050/2017 is allowed in part. (iv) The judgment and award dated 15.03.2017 passed in M.V.C.No.2813/2015 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Saundatti, is modified. (v) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced by Rs.53,760/- and the petitioner is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.5,80,647/- with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization. (vi) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of within a - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11984 MFA No. 104050 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 101388 of 2018 period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (vii) The office is directed to transmit the amount in deposit and the trial Court records to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11