- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11308 MFA No. 100388 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100388 OF 2014 (MV-) BETWEEN: SANGAPPA S/O. BASAPPA MUTTAGI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. HUNGUND. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. D.V. PATTAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HULAGAPPA S/O. HANAMAPPA HALAVAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF A/R.CAB, NO. KA-29/A-3160, R/O. HUVANUR VILLAGE, TQ. HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOTE. 2. THE D.G.M, CHOLAMANDALAM M.S., GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., 9/1, ULSUR ROAD, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MSA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC. NO.300/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NO.X HUNAGUND, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.11 12:11:53 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11308 MFA No. 100388 of 2014 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Appeal is filed by the claimant, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, vide judgment and award dated 27.09.2013 in M.V.C. No.300/2012 by the learned M.A.C.T.-X, Hunagund. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 2.2 On 25.10.2011, the claimant was proceeding towards his village in an auto rickshaw cab bearing registration No.KA-29/A-3160. The driver of the auto rickshaw cab drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, and lost the control over the vehicle, and dashed to the wall of the bridge of varagodadinni nala. As a result, the auto rickshaw turned turtled, and the claimant sustained a grievous injuries. The claimant filed a claim - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11308 MFA No. 100388 of 2014 petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act seeking the compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. It is contended that the claimant spent a huge amount for medical and other expenses. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 2.3. The owner of the Auto rickshaw filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, except admitting his ownership over the Auto Rikshaw. It is contended that the driver of the auto rickshaw held a valid and effective license as of the date of the accident and the insurance policy was in force and therefore, he is not liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against him. 3. The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and denied that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto rickshaw cab. It is contended that the driver of auto rickshaw cab - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11308 MFA No. 100388 of 2014 did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition. 4. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 5. The claimant, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined the doctor as PW-2, and 71 documents were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-71. Conversely, the owner of the offending vehicle/Auto rickshaw was examined as RW-1 and marked 4 documents as Ex.R-1 to R-4. The insurance company did not lead any evidence. 6. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 27.09.2013 and awarded a compensation of Rs.52,913/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization and held that the owner and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation, and directed the insurance company to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11308 MFA No. 100388 of 2014 deposit the compensation amount. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, awarded by the Tribunal, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the claimant, and the learned counsel for the insurance company. 8. Learned counsel for claimant submits that the claimant met with an accident, sustained grievous injuries, and suffered a permanent disability. To prove the disability, the claimant examined the doctor as PW-2, who opined that the claimant has suffered a permanent physical disability of 10% to the whole body, wherein the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 3% and awarded a compensation which is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company supported the impugned judgment, and award and submitted that the compensation awarded by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11308 MFA No. 100388 of 2014 Tribunal is just and proper, and it do not call for, any interference by this court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 11. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation. Regarding the quantum of compensation: 12. It is not in dispute that the claimant met with an accident, sustained grievous injuries and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto rickshaw cab. To prove the same, the claimant has produced a charge sheet marked as Ex.P-6 which is filed against the driver of the Auto rickshaw. Though, the claimant has contended that he has suffered permanent physical disability, and examined the doctor as PW-2, the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 3%. Admittedly, the claimant has been continued in the service after the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11308 MFA No. 100388 of 2014 accident. Considering the evidence of PW-2 i.e., the Doctor, and medical records, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimant is entitled to a global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 13. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 27.09.2013 in M.V.C.No.300/2012 by the M.A.C.T.-X, Hunagund, hereby is modified. (iii) The claimant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.47,087/- rounded off to Rs.47,100/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization. (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. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11308 MFA No. 100388 of 2014 (v) The Office is directed to transmit the records, to the Tribunal, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23