[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Sunil S/O. Subhas Nayak on 18 December, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18633-DB
MFA No. 104423 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 101812 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104423 OF 2023 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101812 OF 2023
IN MFA NO.104423/2023
BETWEEN:
SHRI SUNIL S/O. SUBHASH NAIK
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. HEAVY TRUCK DRIVER (NOW
NIL)
R/O. GAVADAWADA, JOIDA,
TQ. JOIDA, DIST. KARWAR.
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI H ...APPELLANT
M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
(BY SRI ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2025.12.22
10:20:54 +0530
AND:
1. SHRI IRFAN S/O. GULAB MOMIN
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. TRANSPORT BUSINESS
R/O. YADAV COLONY, PETH VADAGAON,
TQ. HATAKANAGLE, DIST. KOLHAPUR 416109.
2. THE MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO. 4576, PHARALE BUILDING,
KC ROAD, NEAR PRABHAKAR TALKIES,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18633-DB
MFA No. 104423 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 101812 of 2023
HC-KAR
AT POST. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE SERVED TO R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
PRAYING THAT, THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.08.2022
PASSED IN MVC NO.501/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, HALIYAL, IN AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.11,59,515.71/- WITH 9% INTEREST P.A. KINDLY MODIFIED
BY ENHANCE TO RS.24,40,485/- WITH INTEREST @ 12% PER
ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION, TILL THE DATE OF
PAYMENT, BY HOLDING RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 HEREIN
JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE TO PAY THE COMPENSATION,
BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.101812/2023
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
NO.4576, HARALE BUILDING,
KC ROAD, NEAR PRABHAKAR TALKIES,
AT POST. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI,
REP. THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
TP-HUB, N.K. COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR,
KESHWAPUR ROAD, HUBBALLI,
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18633-DB
MFA No. 104423 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 101812 of 2023
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SUNIL S/O. SUBHAS NAYAK
AGED 29 YEARS, OCC. TRUCK DRIVER,
R/O. GAVADEWADA, JOIDA,
TQ. JOIDA, DIST. KARWAR (UTTAR KANNADA)-
581212.
2. IRFAN S/O. GULAB MOMI,
AGED 54 YEARS, OCC. TRANSPORT BUSINESS,
R/O. YADAV COLONY PETH, VADAGAON,
TQ. HATAKANAGALE, DIST. KOLHAPUR,
STATE. MAHARASHTRA.
(OWNER OF THE TRUCK
BEARING NO.MH09/Q51118)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2-DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, PRAYING THAT, THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
26.08.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.501/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HALIYAL, AT HALIYAL AND SET ASIDE
AWARD DATED 26.08.2022 AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18633-DB
MFA No. 104423 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 101812 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)
These appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, by the insurer and claimant respectively
questioning the Judgment and Award passed in MVC
No.501/2018 dated 26.08.2022 on the file of Senior Civil
Judge and Additional MACT, Haliyal (for short 'the
Tribunal').
2. The insurer has filed the appeal challenging the
quantum of compensation on the ground of percentage of
disability taken by the Tribunal and the claimant has filed
the appeal praying for enhancement of compensation under
several heads.
3. Parties would be referred to with their ranks as
they were before the Tribunal for sake of convenience and
clarity.
4. The claimant has filed the claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying for
compensation in respect of the accident that had taken
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18633-DB
HC-KAR
place on 08.01.2018 at 02.30 p.m., near Jomathale village
at Kanapur-Ramnagar road involving the motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-65/H-1579 and truck bearing
registration No.MH-09/Q-5118. The contention of claimant
is that due to the accident he has sustained following
injuries:-
1)Ileum right side
2)Fracture of metacarpal little finger,
3)Fracture of left patella
4)Fracture of shaft of left femur and
5) Dislocation of right shoulder joint.
5. The claimant has taken treatment as an inpatient
and an outpatient in several hospitals and he was advised
to take rest. He was working as a labourer before the
accident and thus he has sustained 100% functional
disability, because he cannot do the manual labour work
which he was doing earlier. Hence, prayed for compensation
under several heads.
6. On receipt of notice, respondent No.1 filed his
written statement, wherein, he contended that the accident
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18633-DB
HC-KAR
happened due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle
bearing Registration No.KA-65/H-1579 by the claimant and
not because of the driver of truck bearing Registration No.
MH-09/Q-5118. Further it was contended that his vehicle is
validly insured with respondent No.2 and hence, he is not
liable to pay compensation. The owner and insurer of
motorcycle are not made as parties to the petition. Hence,
petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence,
prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. Respondent No.2 filed its written statement
wherein it took contention that the driver of the truck was
not having a valid and effective driving license at the time
of accident. Further, the owner has not fulfilled the
requirement of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules,
1989. The truck in question was not having a fitness
certificate. Hence, there is a breach of policy conditions and
thus, it is not liable to pay compensation.
8. On behalf of claimant, claimant was examined as
PW1, apart from examining two doctors as PW.2 and PW.3,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18633-DB
HC-KAR
and marking Exs.P.1 to P.16 before the Tribunal. On behalf
of respondents, no oral evidence is let in, except marking
Exs.R.1 to R.3.
9. After recording evidence of both sides and
hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the
conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the truck bearing
Registration No.MH.09/Q-5118 and that it is validly insured
with respondent No. 2 and thus saddled the liability on
respondent No. 2.
10. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the
claimant has preferred the appeal, and challenging the
percentage of disability taken by the Tribunal the insurer
has preferred the appeal.
11. Heard arguments of both sides.
12. Learned counsel for appellant Kumari Vinaya
Kuppellur for Sri.N.R.Kuppelur would submit that as per the
disability certificate, the disability was 30% to lower limb
and 5% to right upper limb and total disability was only
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18633-DB
HC-KAR
35% and its 1/3rd ought to have been taken for the whole
body. But, the Tribunal has taken the disability to the whole
body at 35%, which is not proper.
13. Learned counsel for appellant further submits
that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% is
also on the higher side and it ought to be at 6% per annum.
For these two reasons, she prayed for modification of the
judgment and award.
14. Learned counsel for claimant-appellant Sri.Ashok
A. Nayak would submit that the claimant has suffered 5
fractures and thus the amount of compensation awarded
under the heads of pain and suffering, food, diet and
nourishment, conveyance charges and loss of amenities by
the Tribunal was on the lower side and hence prayed for
enhancement of compensation on those heads and prayed
for allowing his appeal.
15. Having heard arguments of both sides and
verifying the appeal papers along with trial Court records,
the points that arise for consideration are:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18633-DB
HC-KAR
1) Whether the percentage of disability taken
by the Tribunal is proper?
2) Whether claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation under several
heads?
16. Finding on these points would be in the Negative
and Affirmative respectively, for the following reasons:-
Date, place and time of accident is not in dispute i.e.,
the accident that has taken place on 08.01.2018 at 02.30
P.M., near Jomathale Village at Khanapur-Ramnagar road,
involving motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-65/H-1579
and Truck bearing registration No.MH-09/Q-5118 is not in
dispute. The injuries sustained by the claimant in the
aforesaid accident are 1) Ileum right side 2)Fracture of
metacarpal little finger, 3)Fracture of left patella 4)Fracture
of shaft of left femur and 5) Dislocation of right shoulder
joint, is not in dispute. Thus, the claimant has suffered five
injuries and taking note of the treatment taken as inpatient
and suffering undergone, the compensation under the head
"pain and suffering" ought to be Rs.1,00,000/- but the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18633-DB
HC-KAR
Tribunal awarded only at Rs.50,000/-; likewise, towards
"food, diet and attendant charges", the compensation
would be Rs.20,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal; likewise the compensation awarded under the
head-"conveyance charges" would be Rs.20,000/-
instead of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and towards
"loss of amenities", compensation should be
Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
17. As far as percentage of disability to the whole
body taken by the Tribunal is concerned, it is improper
because, as per the disability certificate -Exhibit P.12, the
claimant has disability of only 5% to his right upper limb
and 30% to his left lower limb and thus total is 35% to
particular limbs. 1/3rd of disability to a particular limb is to
be taken to determine the whole body disability and thus
disability of claimant shall be taken at 12% instead of 35%
taken by the Tribunal. The claimant has not produced any
material before the Court to show his actual income and
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18633-DB
HC-KAR
hence, as the accident has taken place in the year 2018, by
relying upon the notional income as per chart prepared by
KSLSA for Lok Adalat, the income of claimant shall be taken
at Rs.11,750/-p.m. Thus, loss of income due to disability
would be Rs.11,750/- X 12 X 17 X 12%=2,87,640/-.
18. The Tribunal has awarded rate of interest at 9%
which is on the higher side and hence, considering the bank
rate of interest, it shall be reduced to 6% per annum.
19. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the following
reduced compensation:-
1. Towards pain and Rs.50,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
suffering.
2 Towards medical Rs.1,95,565.71/ Rs.1,95,565.71/-
expenses. -
3. Food, diet and Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/-
nourishment.
4. Conveyance charges Rs.5,000/- Rs.20,000/-
5. Loss of earning during Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/-
the laid period of
treatment.
6. Loss of future earning Rs.8,38,950/- Rs.2,87,640/-
capacity
7. Towards loss of Rs.20,000/- Rs.50,000/-
amenities
Total Rs.11,59,515.71 Rs.7,13,205.71
/- (rounded off to
Rs.7,13,300/-)
20. With these modifications, we proceed to pass
the following:
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18633-DB
HC-KAR
ORDER
a) The appeals are allowed in part;
b) The judgment and award passed in MVC
No.501/2018 dated 26.08.2022 on the file of
Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Haliyal
is modified;
c) The claimant is entitled for total compensation
of Rs.7,13,300/- as against
Rs.11,59,515.71/- awarded by the Tribunal;
d) The aforesaid shall carry interest at the rate of
6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
its realization;
e) The respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest
within eight weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this judgment;
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18633-DB
HC-KAR
f) The deposit and disbursement shall be made as
per the award of the Tribunal;
g) Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be
transferred to Tribunal.
h) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
HMB
Ct-cmu
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 43
