- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15694 MFA No. 103818 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103818 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHRI VILAS S/O. MONAPPA PATIL, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: MASON, NOW NIL, R/O: MANGAI GALLI, KONDUSKOP VILLAGE, POST: HALAGA, BASTWAD, TQ: DIST: BELAGAVI-591120. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. MUKTUM HUSSAIN S/O. KUTUBUDDIN NICHANAKI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: A/P UPPIN BETAGERI, DIST: DHARWAD-581206. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI-590002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.1230/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-VI, BELAGAVI DATED 27.08.2016 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15694 MFA No. 103818 of 2016 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING 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) 1. Heard Sri.Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.S. C. Bhuti, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal–VI, Belagavi in MVC No.1230/2015 dated 27.08.2016. This is a claimant's appeal. Being dissatisfied with the sum that is awarded as compensation, the present appeal is filed. 3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal is filed on two grounds. Firstly, that the contributory negligence attributed on the part of the appellant is unjustifiable and secondly, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15694 MFA No. 103818 of 2016 that the Tribunal did not award justifiable sum as compensation. 4. On the first aspect, i.e., in respect of contributory negligence, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accident solely occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/L-5934. The appellant produced the evidence of PW3 to establish the said fact. However, the Tribunal held that the appellant is equally liable for the accident to occur. Learned counsel submits that the liability has to be fixed upon the insurer and the insured of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/L-5934, i.e., the respondents herein and a direction has to be issued to the respondents to pay the entire amount which the appellant is liable to receive as compensation. Learned counsel placed much reliance upon the contents of Exhibit P4, which is the certified copy of the spot sketch. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15694 MFA No. 103818 of 2016 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the case was registered against the appellant as well and finally after investigation, police laid the charge sheet even against him. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly attributed contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and thus the appeal is not maintainable. 6. The version of the appellant is that, on 02.05.2015 at about 07.45 p.m., while he was proceeding along with a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/EQ-4217 from Belagavi towards Alarwad Bridge and while he was riding the motorcycle properly, the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/L-5934 came from opposite direction at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motorcycle, due to which he sustained grievous injuries. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15694 MFA No. 103818 of 2016 7. It is not in dispute that the criminal case was registered against the riders of both the motorcycles and after due investigation, charge sheet was laid against the riders of the motorcycles, one of whom is the appellant herein. The documents produced by the appellant himself establish these facts. 8. In the normal parlance, after scrutinising all the documents collected and the statements of the witnesses examined, police will file charge sheet. Thus, it has to be inferred that the Investigating Officer has considered even the contents of Exhibit P4 spot sketch as well. 9. Except the evidence of PW3, there is no other material to show that the rider of the other motorcycle alone was at fault and that the appellant did not contribute to the accident to occur. Admittedly, neither the contents of the FIR nor the contents of the charge sheet were challenged by the appellant. Though the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15694 MFA No. 103818 of 2016 said fact alone cannot be taken into consideration, yet having considered the fact that there is no substantive piece of evidence to discard the police record that is filed by the appellant himself, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal did not err in holding that the contribution of the appellant for the accident is 50%. 10. Now coming to the amount that is awarded as compensation, undoubtedly the appellant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident and one such injury is to the left eye. The assessment of PW2 is that the permanent physical disability in respect of the injured eye is 60%. The Tribunal, subjecting the evidence of PW2 to scrutiny, came to a conclusion that the permanent physical disability in respect of whole body can be considered as 30%. 11. When learned counsel for the appellant states that the compensation granted under each head is on the lower side, learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15694 MFA No. 103818 of 2016 the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards ‘pain and suffering’, Rs.50,000/- towards ‘loss of future amenities’ and Rs.25,000/- towards ‘loss of life expectancy’, which are exorbitant. 12. The Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.7,36,000/- as compensation. Admittedly, the accident occurred in the year 2015. For the said period, a sum of Rs.7,36,000/- as compensation cannot be termed to be on the lower side. In any case, the compensation towards ‘pain and suffering’, i.e., Rs.1,50,000/-, as rightly contended is exorbitant. However, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.5,000/- only towards ‘conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges’. Thus, considering these ups and downs, the total sum awarded as compensation is highly justified. 13. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the ultimate amount that is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15694 MFA No. 103818 of 2016 awarded as compensation, which in the facts and circumstances of the case is justified. 14. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed without costs. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37