- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11439 MFA No. 103062 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103062 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., R/BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BELAGAVI. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, AT SEETA SMRUTHI, MARUTHI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001 REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHARANAPPA S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SUBHAS BHARAMAJI PATIL, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: NANJINKODAL, POST: HALASHI, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI-590023. 2. DRUVA BHARAT KADROLKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HOUSE NO.1525/A, BELAGAVI GOA ROAD, KHANAPUR, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI-590023. …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 12.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2019/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.6,55,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% 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: 2025.09.11 12:08:55 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11439 MFA No. 103062 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the Judgment and award dated 12.07.2016 passed in MVC No.2019/2014 by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, and Additional M.A.C.T., Belagavi (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3.1. On 12.06.2014, the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/EG-9171. The rider of another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 22/ED-2224 came from the opposite direction at a high speed in the rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the petitioner’s motorcycle, resulting in an accident, due to which the petitioner sustained a grievous injuries. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11439 MFA No. 103062 of 2016 petitioner filed a claim petition under section 166 of the M.V.Act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, and accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 4. A Notice was served on the owner of the motorcycle. Despite the service of a notice, he remained unrepresented. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contented that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, but the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Accordingly, the Insurance Company prays to dismiss the claim petition. 5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the relevant issues. 6. To substantiate his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1, examined the Doctor as PW-2, and marked 12 documents as Ex.P1 to P12. The Insurance - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11439 MFA No. 103062 of 2016 Company has not led oral evidence, However, marked 1 document as Ex.R1. 7. After assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition with costs vide judgment dated 12.07.2016 and held that the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,55,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. It is also held that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount. 8. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and award of the Tribunal, insofar as the quantum of compensation, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal. 9. A Notice was issued to the petitioner, despite the service of a notice, the petitioner remained unrepresented. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11439 MFA No. 103062 of 2016 11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Doctor i.e., PW-2 is not the treated doctor, although he has issued a disability certificate. He has opined that the petitioner is suffering from a permanent physical disability at 40% to the right lower limb, however, he has not furnished the proper grounds or calculation to arrive at such a conclusion. He submits that the Tribunal has assessed the functional disability at 30%. Hence, he submits that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on a higher side. Therefore, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The point that would arise for the consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation 14. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner. The Tribunal, placing reliance on Ex. P-8 i.e. a certified copy of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11439 MFA No. 103062 of 2016 chargesheet, which discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the offending motorcycle. The Tribunal has rightly recorded its finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the offending motorcycle. Regarding the quantum of compensation 15. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the petitioner, to prove that he has suffered a permanent disability examined the Doctor as PW-2. He has examined the petitioner clinically and radiologically and issued a disability certificate marked at Ex.P7. He has opined that the petitioner has a permanent physical disability of 40% to the right lower limb; However, he has not given any disability to the whole body. The Tribunal has taken the functional disability of the petitioner at 30% which is on higher side. Considering the medical records produced by the petitioner and the evidence of PW-2, this - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11439 MFA No. 103062 of 2016 Court reassesses the permanent functional disability at 20%. 16. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads is just and proper, except under head of loss of future income. The compensation awarded by the tribunal under the head of loss of future income needs to be reduced. Accordingly, this Court reassesses the compensation under the head of loss of future income, at Rs.2,88,000/-(i.e. Rs.7,500/- x 12 x 16 x 20%) as against Rs. 4,32,000/- awarded by the tribunal under the said head. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,26,000/- as against Rs.6,70,000/-. 17. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11439 MFA No. 103062 of 2016 (ii) The Judgment and award dated 12.07.2016 in MVC No.2019/2014 passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Belagavi is hereby modified. (iii) The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,26,000/- as against Rs.6,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization. (iv) The excess amount, if any, be refunded to the Insurance Company. (v) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, if not depositing. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11439 MFA No. 103062 of 2016 (vi) The amount in deposit, if any, along with trial Court records, be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RHR/-CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3