- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9634 MFA No. 20290 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. 20290 OF 2013 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. KIRLOSKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI REP. BY ASSISTANT MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI-20. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S V YAJI, ADV) AND: 1. PRASHANT PATIL S/O KALLAPPA AGED: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST AND MILK VENDING, R/O. CHENNAWADI TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. ISAK ABDUIRAHEMAN SHINGARGAON AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS DRIVER R/O. NANDGAD, TQ: KHANAPUR DIST: BELAGAVI …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANJAY S KATAGERI, ADV FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1647/2010 ON THE FILE FO THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KHANAPUR, 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: VINAYAKA B V Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Date: 2025.08.11 16:03:52 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9634 MFA No. 20290 of 2013 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act, 1988” for short) by the appellant-Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and award dated 09.11.2012 passed in MVC No.1647/2010 by the MACT, Khanapur. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred based on the ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: 4. On 11.04.2010, on Nandgad-Halashi road, near Channewadi, the driver of the truck bearing Reg.No.KA- 24/1439, owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, and colluded with the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-22/EC-9252. As a result, the petitioner, who - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9634 MFA No. 20290 of 2013 was a pillion rider, sustained grievous injuries. A complaint was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the road traffic accident. 5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a written statement, except admitting that the policy was in force as on the date of the accident, denied all the averments made in 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 P.W.1, examined the doctor as P.W.2, and marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12. On the other hand, the respondents did not lead any oral and documentary evidence. The Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9634 MFA No. 20290 of 2013 in part and awarded compensation of Rs.5,42,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 04.08.2010, excluding the period from 07.07.2012 to 08.10.2012, till realisation. It is held that the respondents are jointly, or severally, to pay the compensation amount. The appellant-Insurance Company, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1647/2010, has filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that there is a delay of 4 days in lodging the complaint. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. He submits that the owner of the motorcycle, on which the respondent- claimant was proceeding as a pillion rider was not made as a party to the proceedings. He submits that respondent- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9634 MFA No. 20290 of 2013 claimant has got created the records and filed the claim petition on false and baseless grounds. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- claimant submits that, after the accident, he was admitted to a hospital, therefore he could not file the complaint immediately. Hence, there was a delay of 4 days in lodging the complaint. To buttress his arguments, he placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RAVI VS. BADRINARAYAN AND OTHERS reported in (2011) 4 SCC 693. He also submits that the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. He submits that the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability jointly and severally and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, and do not call for any interference by this court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9634 MFA No. 20290 of 2013 11. Perused the records and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. The point that would arise for my consideration is: i) Whether the appellant-Insurance Company has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal? Reg.Point No.(i): 12. There is no dispute that the respondent- claimant sustained injuries in a road traffic accident. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the respondent-claimant, has produced the charge sheet, marked as Ex.P6. The Tribunal, considering Ex.P6, has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 13. Insofar as the liability is concerned, the appellant-Insurance Company has taken a specific defence that there was a delay of 4 days in lodging the complaint. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9634 MFA No. 20290 of 2013 The respondent-claimant, after having sustained injuries in a road traffic accident was admitted to a hospital from 11.04.2010 to 20.04.2010. Hence, he could not lodge the complaint immediately. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RAVI (SUPRA), has held that delay in lodging the First Information Report cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant’s case in genuine cases. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the respondents jointly and severally. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the point of liability. 14. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, though the respondent-claimant was aged about 18 years as on the date of the accident, he has not produced any document to income proof. In the absence of the income proof, the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.4,500/- p.m. 15. The income assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper. The respondent-claimant, to prove the disability, examined the doctor as P.W.2, who issued a wound - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9634 MFA No. 20290 of 2013 certificate, marked as Ex.P5. Ex.P10 is the discharge card and Ex.D11 is the disability certificate wherein the doctor has opined that the respondent-has suffered the disability to an extent of 45%. However, the Tribunal has taken the disability at 30%, which is on the higher side. P.W.2 was not the treated doctor. The Tribunal ought to have taken the disability at 20%. The disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence, this court reassesses the disability at 20%. Considering the nature of the injuries and the evidence of P.W.2, this court reassesses the compensation, which is as follows: Particulars Compensation awarded in Rs. By the Tribunal By this Court Pain and suffering 50,000/- 50,000/- Loss of happiness and future amenities 70,000/- 50,000/- Loss of income during the treatment period 18,000/- 18,000/- Incidental charges 24,000/- 24,000/- Medical expenses 68,400/- 68,400/- Towards loss of future income (Rs.4,500/-x 12x18x20%) 2,91,600/- 1,94,400/- Towards future medical expenses 20,000/- 20,000/- Total 5,42,000/- 4,24,800/ Reduced by this Court 1,17,200/- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9634 MFA No. 20290 of 2013 16. In view of the above discussion, point No.(i) is answered in the affirmative, and I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified. iii. The respondent-claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,24,800/- as against Rs.5,42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal along with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 04.08.2010, excluding the period from 07.07.2012 to 08.10.2012, till realisation. iv. Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9634 MFA No. 20290 of 2013 v. Upon deposit of the compensation amount along with interest, 60% of the compensation amount shall be released in favour of the respondent-claimant, on proper identification. The remaining amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit, in any nationalised bank of the choice of the respondent-claimant for a period of five years, and renewable from time to time. vi. The respondent-claimant is entitled to receive the interest on the fixed deposit from time to time. vii. The rest of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, is maintained. viii. The Tribunal records, and the amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10