- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789 MFA No. 101144 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101144 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. MEHABOOB S/O BABUSAB MULTANI AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O. KOUJALAGI, TALUKA: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANJAY S KATAGERI, ADV) AND: 1. SHRI. KRISHNA S/O YALLAPPA BAJANTRI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. GANDHI NAGAR, MUNAVALLI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM (DRIVER OF THE TRUCK BEARING NO.KA-24/9595). 2. SHRI. VIRUPAKSHAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA BURJI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. MUNAVALLI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM (OWNER OF THE TRUCK BEARING NO.KA-24/9595). 3. SHRI. ARVIND M. DALVAI AGE: MAJOR, OCC:NIL, R/O.KAUJALAGI, TALUK: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM (OWNER OF THE SCORPIO CAR BEARING NO.KA-04/MD-8451) 4. DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM (INSURER OF THE SCORPIO CAR BEARING NO.KA-04/MD-8451) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADV FOR R4, NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 ARE SERVED) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.17 15:46:03 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789 MFA No. 101144 of 2014 MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:31.12.2013, PASSED IN MVC.NO.1356/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-I AND PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BELGAUM, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. 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 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. 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 petitioner, challenging the judgment and award dated 31.12.2013 passed in MVC No.1356/2011 by the MACT- I and Principal District Judge, Belgaum. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. The petitioner in MVC No.1356/2011 was traveling along with one Sangappa in a Scorpio Car bearing Registration No.KA-04/MD-8451, on 17.01.2011 from - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789 MFA No. 101144 of 2014 Belgaum towards Gokak. When the said Scorpio reached near the spot of accident, a truck bearing registration No. KA-24/9595 came from opposite direction and collided with the Scorpio Car. As a result, the petitioner and Sangappa sustained grievous injuries. Hence, Sangappa and the petitioner filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the M.V Act, seeking for compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., the owner and the driver of the Truck in question, filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the Scorpio car and not on the part of the driver of the Truck. It is contended that driver of the Truck in question was possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789 MFA No. 101144 of 2014 claim petition against the driver and the owner of the Truck in question. 5. Insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that the Scorpio car is a commercial vehicle and the passengers are not allowed to travel in the said vehicle and the policy does not cover the passengers and no additional premium was paid by the owner of the Scorpio. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the claim petition. 6. The Tribunal, clubbed both claim petitions and framed the separate issues. 7. The petitioner in MVC No.1356/2011 was examined as PW.2 and examined a doctor as PW.3 and marked 76 documents as Exs.P1 to P76. The officer of the Insurance Company was examined as RW.1 and marked 2 documents as Exs.R1 to R2. The tribunal, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789 MFA No. 101144 of 2014 after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.1,49,003/- to the petitioner, against respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., the owner and the driver of the Truck in question and dismissed the claim petition against the owner and Insurance Company of the Scorpio. 8. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation in MVC No.1356/2011, and also dismissal of the claim petition against the owner and the insurance company of the Scorpio vehicle, filed this Appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was an inmate in the Scorpio and he is a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789 MFA No. 101144 of 2014 third party. He is entitled to claim compensation against the Insurance Company of the Scorpio. He submits that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim petition against the owner and the Insurance Company of the Scorpio Car. He also submits that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. To prove the disability, the petitioner had examined a doctor as PW.3. He has opined that the petitioner has suffered comminuted fracture of neck, humerus right shoulder, fracture to the right side ribs, multiple injuries over right shoulder, grievous injury to right arm, and grievous injury to all over the body. He has opined that permanent physical disability of 50% in the right shoulder joint due to the fracture of upper end and in the neck of the right humerus bone and in the right shoulder joint and in the 2nd and 3rd ribs in the right side of the chest. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789 MFA No. 101144 of 2014 11. The Tribunal without considering the wound certificate issued by PW.3, assessed the disability. The petitioner has examined a doctor and there is no rebuttal evidence from the respondents’ side. The Tribunal could have assessed the disability to some extent, but the Tribunal has not assessed any permanent physical disability. Considering the evidence of PW.3, and medical records produced by the petitioner, the injuries sustained by him are grievous in nature. Hence, he submits that the Tribunal has committed an error for not assessing the permanent disability. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company of Scorpio Car submits that a criminal case has been registered against the driver of the Truck in question and no criminal case is registered against the driver of the Scorpio Car. He - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789 MFA No. 101144 of 2014 submits that the petitioner has not examined any eye witnesses to prove that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Scorpio car. He submits that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition against the owner and the Insurance Company of the Scorpio vehicle. 13. He also submits that the contributory negligence cannot be presumed without direct or corroborative evidence. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PRABHAVATHI AND OTHERS VS. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, reported in 2025 LIVE LAW SC 266. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 14. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789 MFA No. 101144 of 2014 15. The points that arise for consideration are about the liability and the quantum of compensation. Reg. Liability: 16. It is not in dispute that the petitioner met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. To prove that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Truck in question, the petitioner has produced the charge sheet marked as Ex.P7, which discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Truck in question, and further no complaint is filed against the driver of the Scorpio Car. The petitioner has contended that driver of the Scorpio car was driving the Car in a rash and negligent manner. The petitioner has not lodged complaint against the driver of the Scorpio Car, and the charge sheet has not been filed. Though the petitioner is an inmate in the Scorpio Car, he has not examined any other inmates - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789 MFA No. 101144 of 2014 of the Car to prove that the driver of the Scorpio was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and contributed for the cause of accident. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in recording the finding that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Truck, and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the Scorpio car and has rightly dismissed the claim petition against the owner and the insurance company of the Scorpio car. Hence, the point for consideration on the liability is answered accordingly. Reg. Quantum of compensation: 17. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is an agriculturist and was doing business and earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month. To substantiate the income, the petitioner has not produced any income proof. In the absence of income proof, the Tribunal should have taken a notional income as per the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789 MFA No. 101144 of 2014 schedule notified by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. The accident is of the year 2011. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the notional monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.6,000/-. Further, the petitioner was aged about 37 as of the date of accident and hence the 40% prospects must be added. The petitioner examined a doctor as PW.3 to prove his disability. Doctor has treated the petitioner and issued disability certificate, wherein he has opined that the petitioner has suffered 50% disability in respect of right upper limb. The tribunal has not assessed the disability and further the Tribunal has not considered evidence of PW.3 and medical records. Considering the evidence of PW.3 and medical records, this court re-assess the permanent disability at 10%. 18. Considering the oral evidence of the parties, this court reassess the compensation under the following heads; - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789 MFA No. 101144 of 2014 Compensation awarded in Rs. Sl. No. Heads of compensation By the Tribunal By this Court 1 Loss of future earning due to disability (Rs.8,400/-x12x15x10%) 24,000 1,51,200 2 Pain and suffering 30,000 50,000 3 Food, Nourishment, and Attendant charges 5,000 20,000 4 Loss of Amenities - 25,000 5 Medical and other expenses 91,003 91,003 6 Loss of income during the laid up period (Rs. 8,400x 2) - 16,800 Total : 1,49,003/- 3,54,003/- Enhanced compensation (Rs. 3,54,003- 1,49,003) Rs.2,05,000/- Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 3,54,003/- as against Rs.1,49,003/-. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,05,000/-. 19. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789 MFA No. 101144 of 2014 ii. The judgment and award passed in MVC No.1356/2011 is modified. iii. The petitioner is entitle to an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,05,000/-with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. iv. The driver and the owner of the Truck in question – respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. v. The office is directed to transmit the trial court records. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5