- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11395 MFA No. 102493 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102493 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHRI MAHADEV S/O. BASAPPA RADARATTI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND MILK VENDING BUSINESS, NOW NIL, R/O: SHIVAPUR (HALLUR), TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI MUTTAPPA S/O. SHIVABASAPPA SAYANNAVAR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHIVAPUR (HALLUR), TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. (OWNER OF SPLENDOR PLUS MOTOR CYCYLE BEARING REG.NO.KA-49/E-2406) 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., 2ND FLOOR, MADIWALE ARCADE, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (R1-NOTICE SERVED; SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:16.04.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.2868/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.10 12:32:56 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11395 MFA No. 102493 of 2015 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING 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 under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the appellant-claimant, challenging the judgment and award dated 16.04.2015 passed in MVC No.2868/2013 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: 3. On 03.10.2013, the petitioner was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-48/E-3237 towards Khanatti village. When he came on Mahalingpur-Shivapur road, the rider of the Splendor Plus motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-49/E-2406 came from Mahalingpur side in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the motorcycle of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11395 MFA No. 102493 of 2015 the petitioner. Due to the said impact, the petitioner fell and sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. 4. Respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle, filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the rider of the motorcycle was possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident, and the motorcycle was insured with the Insurance Company. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify respondent No.1. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.1. 5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11395 MFA No. 102493 of 2015 petitioner, and he has also contributed in the occurrence of the accident. It is contended that there is contributory negligence on the part of both the riders of the motorcycles. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the separate issues. 7. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as P.W.1, examined the doctor as P.W.2, and marked 23 documents as Exs.P1 to P23. On the other hand, respondent No.2-Insurance Company did not lead any oral evidence, however, only Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.R1. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part holding that the petitioner was also negligent in causing the accident, and he has contributed 50% to the accident. Hence, he is not entitled for 50% of the compensation, and awarded compensation of Rs.67,271/- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11395 MFA No. 102493 of 2015 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realisation. 8. The petitioner, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and liability passed in MVC No.2868/2013, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability to the extent of 50% on the petitioner. He submits that the charge sheet is filed against the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-49/E-2406. He submits that the compensation awarded is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company submits that the petitioner has contributed for the cause of the accident. He - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11395 MFA No. 102493 of 2015 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 appeal. 12. I have perused the records, and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The point, that would arise for consideration is regarding the liability and the quantum of compensation. Reg. Liability: 14. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident, and the injuries sustained by the petitioner. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending vehicle, the petitioner has produced the charge sheet, marked as Ex.P9. The Tribunal considering the Motor Vehicle’s Inspector’s Report, spot panchanama, sketch, and coupled with the cross examination and admissions of P.W.1, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has also contributed to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11395 MFA No. 102493 of 2015 the accident to an extent of 50%. The liability fastened on the petitioner is on the higher side. This court, after considering the evidence on record, is of the opinion that 75% liability is fastened on the Insurance Company and 25% liability is fastened on the petitioner. In view of the above discussion the point on liability is answered accordingly. Reg. Quantum of compensation: 15. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is contended that the petitioner was doing agricultural work earning Rs.2,00,000/-, and from milk vending business, he used to earn Rs.12,000/- p.m. To prove his income, the petitioner has not produced any income proof. However, the Tribunal has taken Rs.6,000/- p.m., which is on the lower side. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal should have taken the notional income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident occurred in 2013, and the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11395 MFA No. 102493 of 2015 notional income of the petitioner is taken at Rs.7,000/- p.m. The petitioner was aged 43 years old as of the date of the accident. In view of the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 25% of the future prospects is to be added to the said amount, i.e., Rs.7,000/-+1,750/- (25%)=8,750/-. Thus, this court reassess the notional income at Rs.8,750/- p.m. To prove the disability, the petitioner examined the doctor as P.W.2. He opined that the petitioner has sustained disability to the extent of 40% to the whole body. However, the Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability to the whole body at 10%. Considering the evidence of the doctor, and the medical records, this court is of the opinion that the percentage of disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. This court re- asses the permanent disability to the whole body at 20%. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11395 MFA No. 102493 of 2015 16. Thus, this court on re-assessment of the entire evidence on record, awards the following compensation: Sl. No. Heads of compensation Compensation awarded in Rs. By the Tribunal By this Court 3 Towards conveyance, food nourishment and attendant charges 12,000/- 30,000/- 4 Loss of income during the laid up period 3,200/- 26,250/- (Rs.8,750 x 3) 5 Loss of future earning due to permanent disability 50,400/- 2,94,000/- (Rs.8,750/- x12x14x20%) 6 Future medical expenses 15,542/- 15,542/- 7 Loss of amenities -- 25,000/- Total : 1,34,542/- 3,90,792/- Less: compensation awarded by the Tribunal 2,56,250/- 25% contributory negligence 64,063/- Enhanced compensation 1,92,187/- Rounded off to 1,92,190/- 17. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified. (iii) The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,90,792/- as against Rs.1,34,542/- awarded by the Tribunal. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11395 MFA No. 102493 of 2015 After deducted 25% towards contributory negligence, the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation is Rs.1,92,190/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation of the amount. (iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with accrued interest within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (v) The Tribunal records, and the amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6