- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9636 MFA No. 22602 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22602 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. SOMAPPA S/O KANNAPPA BANGER, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRI, R/O: BENAKANAHALLI, TQ. DIST. HAVERI …APPELLANT (BY MS. NAYANA RASHINKAR for SMT. SUNITHA P KALASOOR, ADVS) AND: 1. NUJAFAR S/O ANWARSAB SURALESHWAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: ADUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE MOKTALI BUILDING OPP. KSRTC BUS STAND, HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ARUNA DESHAPANDE, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED 18.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.101/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI, 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: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.22 13:04:49 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9636 MFA No. 22602 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the petitioner being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Senior Civil Judge, and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Haveri (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short), in MVC No.101/2012 dated 18.01.2013. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 29.12.2012, the petitioner was travelling from Benakanahalli village towards Haveri in a Katama taxi bearing registration No.KA-29/7240, at that time, the offending vehicle, Tata Ace bearing registration No.KA-27/A- 6524 came from the Kabbur village towards Benahakanahalli village in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the Katama taxi. As a result, the petitioner sustained injuries all over his body. It is contended that the petitioner has spent a huge amount towards medical - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9636 MFA No. 22602 of 2013 treatment and hence filed a claim petition, seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. 3. Respondent No.1 filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver was possessing a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident, and the said vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2. Therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.1. 4. Respondent No.2 filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and it is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed issues and additional issues. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9636 MFA No. 22602 of 2013 6. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1 and also examined the Doctor as PW.2 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-11. In rebuttal, the respondents did not adduce any oral evidence but marked 3 documents as Exs.R1 to R3. 7. The Tribunal after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a compensation of Rs.65,100/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization and held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable. Respondent No.2 was directed to deposit the entire compensation with interest within one month from the date of the order. 8. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, has filed this appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9636 MFA No. 22602 of 2013 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, she prays to allow the appeal and modify the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and enhance the compensation. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supported the impugned judgment and prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Perused the records, and considered the arguments 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 regarding the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner, and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and reiterated the averments of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9636 MFA No. 22602 of 2013 the claim petition in the examination-in-chief. The petitioner also examined the Doctor as PW.2, who has issued the disability certificate. He has deposed that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries all over the body and he has issued the disability certificate as per Ex.P-11. He deposed that the petitioner had suffered permanent disability to the whole body to an extent of 16% to 18%. Admittedly, PW.2 has not treated the petitioner soon after the accident. He has examined the petitioner to find out the extent of disability based on the wound certificate and discharge card of the petitioner. Though the Tribunal has assessed the physical disability at 5%, which is on the lower side, this Court considering the disability certificate and the evidence of PW.2, is of the opinion to re-assess the disability at 9% to the whole body. Admittedly the accident was of the year 2012 and the petitioner was aged about 65 years at the time of road traffic accident as per Ex P 11, the disability certificate. Further, to prove the income of the petitioner no income proof was produced. Thus, considering the verbal - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9636 MFA No. 22602 of 2013 evidence of the parties and the material placed on record, this Court re-assess the compensation as follows: Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs. Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 1 Pain and suffering 20,000/- 40,000/- 2 Loss of amenities 10,000/- 25,000/- 3 Loss of income due to disability 26,400/- 84,942/- (7150x17x11x9%) 4 Loss of income during laid up period 1,000/- 21,450/- 5 Medical expenses 5,000/- 5,000/- 6 Attendant charges 700/- 5,000/- 7 Transportation charges 2,000/- 5,000/- TOTAL Enhancement- Rs. 1,21, 292/- 65,100/- 1,86,392/- 15. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,86,392/- as against Rs.65,100/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,21,292/-. 16. In view of the above discussion, the point for consideration is answered in the affirmative and accordingly proceed to pass the following order: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9636 MFA No. 22602 of 2013 ORDER The Appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 18.01.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Haveri, in MVC No.101/2012, is modified. The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,21,292/- with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation of the amount. The respondent-Insurance company, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with accrued interest within eight weeks from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The office is directed to transmit the records to the tribunal. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE KMV CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15