- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11790 MFA No. 23091 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101752 of 2015 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. 23091 OF 2013 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101752 OF 2015 IN MFA NO. 23091 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. APPASAHEB S/O BABU JADAV, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SINGALAPUR, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VITTHAL S TELI, ADV) AND: 1. TUKARAM S/O SATTEPPA HANAMANTAGOL, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: NEWSPAPER EDITOR & PUBLISHER, R/O: GOKAK FALLS, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. ANAND S/O SHIVAPPA SUNAGAR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: SUNAGAR GALLI, GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANAMANT R LATUR, ADV FOR R1, R2 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.05.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.291/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT & MEMBER, MACT, HUKKERI, SITTING AT GOKAK, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,79,960/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATED OF PETITION TILL REALISATION. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.17 15:46:06 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11790 MFA No. 23091 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101752 of 2015 IN MFA NO. 101752 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. TUKARAM S/O SATTEPPA HANAMANTAGOL AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: NEWS PAPER EDITOR & PUBLISHER, NOW NILL, R/O: GOKAK FALLS, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HANAMANT R LATUR, ADV) AND: 1. ANAND S/O SHIVAPPA SUNAGAR AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: SUNAGAR GALLI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. APPASAHEB S/O BABU JADAV AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: SINGALAPUR, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADV FOR R2, R1 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.05.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.291/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER FAST TRACK AND MEMBER, MACT, HUKKERI SITTING AT GOKAK, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER : - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11790 MFA No. 23091 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101752 of 2015 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. These appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) arising out of the judgment and award dated 29.05.2013 passed in MVC No.291/2011 by the learned Fast Track Court and MACT, Hukkeri, sitting at Gokak. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows: 3. On 24.12.2010 at about 4.45 p.m., when the petitioner was proceeding on Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-22/U-4478 from Dr. Hosmani hospital to Jyoti Peg Bar road, at that time, the driver of an Auto rickshaw bearing Registration No. KA-23/6158, drove the Auto rickshaw in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner met with an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11790 MFA No. 23091 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101752 of 2015 accident and sustained grievous injuries and he has spent huge amount towards medical and other expenses. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V Act, seeking for compensation on the account of the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. 4. The driver and the owner of the Auto rickshaw filed a separate statement of objections. The driver of the Auto rickshaw filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and denied the alleged accident. It is contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is exorbitant. Hence, on these grounds prays to dismiss the claim petition against the driver of the offending vehicle. 5. The owner of the offending vehicle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that the petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11790 MFA No. 23091 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101752 of 2015 colluding with the police officials got created false and bogus documents against the driver of the Auto rickshaw. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition. 6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 7. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1 and examined a doctor as PW.2 and marked 61 documents as Exs.P1 to P61. In rebuttal, the driver examined a power of attorney holder as RW.1 and marked one document as Ex.R-1. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition in part, and awarded the compensation of Rs.2,79,960/- with interest @ 6% p.a. It is held that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11790 MFA No. 23091 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101752 of 2015 8. The owner of the offending vehicle, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.291/2011 preferred an appeal in MFA No.23091/2013 and the petitioner being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal in MVC No.291/2011 filed an appeal in MFA No.101752/2015. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle and the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle submits that the petitioner has contributed for the cause of accident. The Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability on the petitioner for contributing the cause of accident. He also submits that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant. He submits that he is an editor of the newspaper and there is no loss of future earning - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11790 MFA No. 23091 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101752 of 2015 capacity. The Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation under the head of loss of future income. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal filed by him and dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, and the petitioner has not contributed for the cause of accident. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto rickshaw. There is no negligence on the part of the petitioner for the cause of accident. He submits that the petitioner has suffered a functional disability. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the petitioner and dismiss the appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11790 MFA No. 23091 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101752 of 2015 12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The point that arises for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation. 14. There is no dispute about the occurrence of the accident, and the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries. The petitioner to demonstrate that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto rickshaw, 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 Auto rickshaw. 15. Learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle submits that the petitioner has contributed for the cause of accident. Though the owner has taken the said contention in the statement of objection, but he did not enter the witness box to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11790 MFA No. 23091 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101752 of 2015 rebut the evidence of the petitioner. Neither the owner nor the driver have examined any eye witnesses to establish that the petitioner has also contributed for the cause of accident. The Tribunal considering Ex.P7, i.e., certified copy of the charge sheet has rightly recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto rickshaw. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in recording its finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto rickshaw. I concur with the findings recorded by the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto rickshaw. Reg. Quantum of compensation: 16. There is no dispute that the petitioner was working as an editor and the publisher in the newspaper. To prove that he has suffered a functional disability, he - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11790 MFA No. 23091 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101752 of 2015 has examined a doctor as PW.2 who has deposed that he has examined the petitioner and treated the petitioner in KLE hospital and the petitioner has suffered disability. He also opined that the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 55% to the whole body, wherein the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 17% to the whole body which is just and proper. The Tribunal considering the evidence of PW.2 and the medical records, has rightly awarded the compensation of Rs.2,79,960/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference. Hence, the petitioner has not made out any ground for enhancement of compensation. 17. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11790 MFA No. 23091 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101752 of 2015 ORDER i. The appeals are dismissed. ii. The amount in deposit and TCR to be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE SKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4