- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15819 MFA No. 22508 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22508 OF 2013 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUDEV PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR, OPP. LAXMI TEMPLE, DAJIBAN PETH, HUBLI. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER, SHRI SHANTI TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, 3RD MAIN, 141, EAST OF N.G.E.F. LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR, BANGALORE- 560043. …APPELLANT (BY MISS.ANUSHA, FOR SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATES) AND: SRI. MANOJ SIDDAPPA PATIL, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE PRESENTLY NIL, R/O: WAGHAWADE VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MALTESH, FOR SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATES) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.02.2013 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-IV, BELGAUM IN M.V.C. NO. GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15819 MFA No. 22508 of 2013 1481/2012, WITH COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Miss.Anusha, who appears through video conference and represents Sri.S.K.Kayakamath, learned counsel on record for the appellant. Also heard Sri.Maltesh, who appears before this Court physically and represents Sri.Harish S.Maigur, learned counsel on record for the respondent. 2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) entertaining the claim petition filed by the respondent herein awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in total with a direction to the appellant herein to pay the same and aggrieved by the decision thus taken, the present appeal is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15819 MFA No. 22508 of 2013 filed. The ordere under challenge is the one which is rendered in M.V.C. No.1481/2012 dated 23.02.2013. 3. The only point highlighted and argued by learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent has not sustained any grievous injury and thus the policy issued does not cover his risk. Learned counsel states that in case the respondent/claimant had sustained grievous injury, then his claim against the appellant might have been maintainable, but as he failed to establish that he sustained grievous injury which resulted in permanent physical disability, no liability can be fastened against the appellant herein. 4. The submission that is made by learned counsel for the respondent/claimant is that the respondent sustained a grievous injury and the said fact is established through the contents of Ex.P.6-Wound Certificate, Ex.P.7- Discharge Card and Ex.P.9-Disability Certificate. Learned counsel also states that through the evidence of PW-2, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15819 MFA No. 22508 of 2013 respondent established the aspect of disability also and thus, the contention of the appellant is unsustainable. 5. The contents of Ex.P.6-Wound Certificate coupled with Ex.P.7-Discharge Summary and the evidence of PW-2 reveal that the respondent sustained ligament tear of left knee joint which is grievous in nature. It is also established that the respondent took treatment as inpatient for the injury sustained. The evidence of PW-2 is that the permanent physical disability in respect of left lower limb is 35%. This Court does not find any reason to discard the contents of Ex-P.6-Wound Certificate and Ex-P.7-Discharge Summary which clearly reveal that the respondent sustained grievous injury. Also, though not to the extent as spoken by PW-2, it can be safely inferred that the respondent is left with certain extent of disability in respect of whole body which can be around 5%. Subjecting the entire evidence to scrutiny, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation in total. The entire argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that in case - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15819 MFA No. 22508 of 2013 the respondent had sustained grievous injury and is left with permanent physical disability, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, he is entitled for compensation. The respondent/claimant has successfully established that he sustained grievous injury and is left with permanent physical disability. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are no merits in the appeal. 6. Thus, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal stands dismissed. (ii) Amount if any in deposit, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE RH CT-GTB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15