- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13439 MFA No. 101388 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101388 OF 2015 (MV-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NETRAVATHI NAGAPATHI BHAT AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O. JAYANAGAR, T.S.S ROAD, SIRSI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GANAPATI M BHAT, ADV) AND: 1. NAGAPATHI PARMESHWAR BHAT AGE: MAJOR, OWNER R/O. JAYANAGAR, T.S.S ROAD, SIRSI. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., R/BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER BRANC OFFICE, KAIKINI ROAD, SIRSI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.02.2015, PASSED IN MVC. NO.163/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, SIRSI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION & SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13439 MFA No. 101388 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No.163 of 2013 vide Judgment and award dated 02.02.2015 by Additional MACT, Sirsi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. On 23.04.2013, the petitioner was travelling in a car belonging to respondent No.1 i.e., the owner bearing registration No.KA-03/MB-9517 which was involved in the accident. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by driver of the vehicle who lost control over the vehicle and it toppled down. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13439 MFA No. 101388 of 2015 the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 4. Respondent No.1 filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the offending car was insured with the insurance company as of the date of the accident and the driver was possessing a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the offending vehicle. 5. The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. It is also contended that a false case is instituted by the petitioner with the help of respondent No.1 who is her husband. Hence, prays - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13439 MFA No. 101388 of 2015 to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company. 6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 7. The petitioner, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW-1, examined the doctor as PW-2 and marked 119 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-119. 8. In rebuttal, the respondents i.e., the owner and the insurance company have not entered the witness box, however, marked three documents as Exhibits R-1 to R-3 with consent. 9. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with cost vide judgment and award dated 02.02.2015 and awarded compensation of ₹5,00,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization of the amount, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13439 MFA No. 101388 of 2015 excluding ₹25,000/-, which was awarded to the petitioner for future medical expenses and held the owner and insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner and directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest. 10. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed this appeal. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and also learned counsel for the insurance company. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all heads are on the lower side. Hence, prays to allow the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13439 MFA No. 101388 of 2015 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 14. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 15. The point would arise for consideration is regarding quantum of compensation. 16. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of accident, and the petitioner having sustained the injuries in the road traffic accident. The petitioner has produced the charge-sheet marked as Ex.P-3, which clearly discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal was justified in answering issue No.1 in the affirmative. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13439 MFA No. 101388 of 2015 Reg.Quantum: 17. The petitioner, to substantiate her income, has not produced any credible proof of income. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income at ₹3,000/-, which is on the lower side. 18. Considering the year of accident i.e., 2013, this Court has taken the notional income at ₹7,000/- per month as per the Schedule notified by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. The petitioner was aged 36 years as of the date of the accident. The multiplier applicable to her age group is ‘15’. 19. The petitioner also examined the doctor as PW-2, who has opined that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 40% to 45% to the whole body. However, the Tribunal has taken the disability of the petitioner at 14%, which is on the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13439 MFA No. 101388 of 2015 lower side. This Court considering the evidence of PW- 2 reassessed the disability of the petitioner at 20%. 20. This Court reassessed the compensation under the following heads: Compensation awarded in Rs. Sl. No. Heads of compensation By the Tribunal By this Court 1 Pain and suffering 60,000/- 80,000/- 2 Medical expenses 3,00,000/- 3,00,000/- 3 Conveyance, attendant charges, diet, and nourishment charges 25,000/- 35,000/- 4 Loss of earning during treatment period 15,000/- 21,000/- 5 Loss of future earnings 75,600/- 2,52,000/- (Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 15 x 20%) 6 Loss of amenities 25,000/- 35,000/- Total : 5,00,600/- 7,23,000/- Compensation enhanced by: 2,22,400/- 21. Thus, in all, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of ₹7,23,000/- as against ₹5,00,600/- awarded by the Tribunal i.e., to an enhancement of compensation is ₹2,22,400/-. In view of the same, the point for consideration is answered accordingly. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13439 MFA No. 101388 of 2015 22. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified. (iii) The petitioner is entitled to for a total compensation of ₹7,23,000/- as against ₹5,00,600/-. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of ₹2,22,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the realisation. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13439 MFA No. 101388 of 2015 (iv) The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (v) The Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18