- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13765 MFA No. 103616 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103616 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PARVATI NAGAR, BALLARI, REP. BY SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGAER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, UMMAHESWARA RAO BUILDING, STATION ROAD, HOSPET-583201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HEMAGIRI GOUDA S/O. KARI BASAVANA GOUDA, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: MANAGEAR OF N.C. ELECTRICALS, R/O: KOGALI VILLAGE, IN H.B. HALLI TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT. NOW RESIDING, AT KOTTUR TOWN, KUDLIGI TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT. 2. K. PRASANNA S/O. KOTRESHAPPA, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: CHAPPARADAHALLI VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT. 3. N. SIDDALINGANA GOUDA S/O. KARI BASAVANA GOUDA, AGE: 44 YEARS, GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13765 MFA No. 103616 of 2016 OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: CHAPPARADAHALLI VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT. NOW R2 AND R3 ARE RESIDING AT KOTTURESHWARA TEMPLE, KOTTUR TOWN, KUDLIGI TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT. 4. THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PARVATI NAGAR, BALLARI. 5. THIMMAIAH S/O. V. VENKATESH, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR, CHECK POST, T.B. DAM ROAD, HOSAPETE TOWN, BALLARI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2-R4 DISPENSED WITH; NOTICE TO R5-SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE M.V.C.NO.32/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-MACT NO.VI AT KUDLIGI AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED: 25.08.2016 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND/OR FURTHER RELIEF’S, AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13765 MFA No. 103616 of 2016 CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) 1. The matter was heard on appellant’s side on 09.10.2025. There was no representation on respondents’ side on the said day. To give fair opportunity to respondent No.1 to make his submission, the matter was adjourned and was ordered to be listed on this day. Accordingly, the matter is listed. However, there is no representation for respondent No.1 even on this day. 2. Challenge in this appeal is the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VI, Kudligi in MVC No.32/2014, dated 25.08.2016. 3. Respondent No.1 filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- in total on the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13765 MFA No. 103616 of 2016 ground that he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2012. The Tribunal, through the impugned award, granted a sum of Rs.2,00,800/- as compensation, fixing 50% liability upon the appellant herein. Projecting that the amount thus awarded as compensation is on higher side, the present appeal is filed. 4. Sri. M. K. Soudagar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent No.1/claimant did not produce any evidence whatsoever to establish the aspect of disability. However, the Tribunal, assuming that the disability would be 8% in respect of the whole body, awarded a sum of Rs.92,000/- towards ‘loss of future earnings’. Learned counsel submits that, the liability is upon respondent No.1/claimant to establish the aspect of disability and without there being any proof in respect of such disability, award of compensation of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13765 MFA No. 103616 of 2016 a huge sum of Rs.92,000/- towards ‘loss of future earnings’ is unjustifiable. 5. By all the evidence produced, respondent No.1/claimant succeeded in establishing that he sustained fracture of the left femur. At para 19 of the impugned order, the Tribunal clearly held that a Commissioner was appointed for examination of the doctor who issued Exhibit P10 - Disability Certificate, but the said doctor could not be examined. Though stated thus, the Tribunal took the disability in respect of the whole body as 8%. The Tribunal is not expected to assess the percentage of disability, that too without there being any relevant material on record. Respondent No.1/claimant even failed to establish the genuineness of Exhibit P10 - Disability Certificate. Except examining himself as PW1, respondent No.1/claimant did not produce any evidence whatsoever to establish the genuineness of Exhibit - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13765 MFA No. 103616 of 2016 P10 - Disability Certificate. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs.92,000/- towards ‘loss of future earnings’. 6. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained fracture of the left femur. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.6,000/- only towards ‘loss of earnings during laid up period’. The said sum is grossly on lower side. 7. Thus, considering the totality of evidence produced and the plea taken by the appellant in respect of the alleged disability, this Court is of the view that the compensation that is granted by the Tribunal is required to be reduced by Rs.50,000/- so that the sum that is awarded as compensation will be justifiable and in accordance with the law laid down. 8. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following order: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13765 MFA No. 103616 of 2016 ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VI, Kudligi, through orders in MVC No.32/2014 dated 25.08.2016 is reduced by Rs.50,000/-. iii. Consequently, the sum that is payable by the appellant is reduced by Rs.25,000/-. iv. Amount, if any in deposit, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35