Karnataka High Court
Avinash S/O. Bajarang Landage vs Dipak S/O. Vasant Kamble And Anr on 10 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:922
MFA No. 200563 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 200564 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.200563 OF 2016 (MV-I)
C/W
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.200564 OF 2016
IN MFA NO.200563/2016:
BETWEEN:
JITENDRA S/O MARUTI SURVE,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: AMBEDKAR NAGAR, JATH,
DIST: SANGLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR H. MANUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
LUCYGRACE
LUCYGRACE Date:
2025.02.12 1. DIPAK S/O VASANT KAMBLE,
10:43:54 -
0800 AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND OWNER
OF MOTORCYCLE BEARING NO.MH-10/AR-6993,
AT/POST: AMBEDKAR NAGAR JATH,
DIST. SANGLI-416 416.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SANGAM BUILDING, S.S. FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R2;
V/O DTD. 04.09.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:922
MFA No. 200563 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 200564 of 2016
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY SUITABLY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.09.2015 PASSED BY THE
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.VI VIJAYPUR, IN
MVC.NO.1408/202.
IN MFA NO.200564/2016:
BETWEEN:
AVINASH S/O BAJARANG LANDAGE,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HANGIRAGE, TAL. SANGOLA,
DIST. SOLAPUR,
NOW RESIDING AT TIKOTA,
TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR H. MANUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DIPAK S/O VASANT KAMBLE,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND OWNER
OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO.MH-10/AR-6993,
AT/POST: AMBEDKAR NAGAR JATH,
DIST. SANGLI-416 416.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SANGAM BUILDING, S.S. FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1-SERVED, BUT UN-REPRESENTED)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:922
MFA No. 200563 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 200564 of 2016
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY SUITABLY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.09.2015 PASSED BY THE
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.VI VIJAYPUR, IN
MVC NO.1407/2012.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the
respondent No.2.
02. Being aggrieved by the judgment in
MVC.No.1407/2012 and MVC.No.1408/2012, by the
learned MACT-VI, Vijayapur dated 21.09.2015, the
petitioners have approached this Court in these appeals.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:922
03. The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell is
that on 06.06.2012 at about 6:00 p.m. when the
petitioner - Avinash (in MVC.No.1407/2012) was
proceeding by walk from Jawala to Kadalas road, the
motorcycle ridden by the respondent No.1 bearing
Reg.No.MH-10-AR-6993, came in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the petitioner. As a result, the
petitioner had sustained injuries. The pillion rider of the
said motorcycle viz., Jitendra (the petitioner in
MVC.No.1408/2012) also fell down in the said accident and
sustained injuries.
04. Both these petitioners contended that the
accident was due to the negligence on the part of the rider
of the motorcycle, therefore, they are entitled for
compensation from the owner and insurer of motorcycle.
05. Pursuant to the notice issued, the insurer of the
motorcycle appeared through their counsel. The owner of
the said motorcycle did not appear, despite service of
notice. The respondent No.2 - insurance company
NC: 2025:KHC-K:922
contented that the motorcycle was covered by liability only
policy. Therefore, the inmate of the said vehicle is not
entitled for the compensation. The pillion rider of the said
vehicle is not entitled for any compensation. Sofar as
MVC.No.1407/2012 is concerned, it is contended that the
compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and
untenable. It disputed the age, income and occupation of
the petitioners and sought for dismissal of the petitions.
Inter-alia it was also contended that the rider of the
motorcycle was not having a valid driving license. There is
violation of terms and conditions of the policy.
06. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues. The
petitioners were examined as PW.1 and PW.2 and two
witnesses were examined as PW.3 and 4 and Ex.P.1 to 22
documents were marked in the evidence. One witness was
examined on behalf of the respondent No.2 - insurance
company as RW.1 and the policy was marked as Ex.R1.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:922
07. After hearing the arguments the Tribunal
awarded compensation of Rs.2,14,039/- in
MVC.No.1407/2012 under following heads:-
Sl. Heads Compensation
No. Awarded
1. Loss of earning capacity Rs.86,400/-
2. Pain and suffering RS.20,000/-
Loss of income during laid up
3. Rs.6,750/-
period
4. Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/-
5. Food and nourishment Rs.5,000/-
6. Medical expenses Rs.85,889/-
Total Rs.2,14,039/-
08. The Tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.1,27,735/- in MVC.No.1408/2012 under following
heads:-
Sl. Heads Compensation
No. Awarded
1. Loss of earning capacity Rs.64,800/-
2. Pain and suffering RS.10,000/-
Loss of income during laid up
3. Rs.27,000/-
period
4. Food and nourishment Rs.5,000/-
5. Medical expenses Rs.20,935/-
Total Rs.1,27,735/-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:922
09. Insofar as MVC.No.1407/2012 is concerned, the
liability was fastened upon the insurance company to pay
the compensation and in MVC.No.1408/2012 the liability
was fastened upon the respondent No.1 since the policy
was act only policy.
10. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and
award, the petitioners in both the petitions have
approached this Court assailing the quantum of the
compensation and fastening of the liability on the
respondent No.1.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners argued that the quantum of the compensation
awarded in both the petitions is on the lower side.
Therefore, there shall be reassessment of the
compensation awarded.
12. Insofar, as MVC.No.1408/2012 is concerned,
the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
fastening the liability on the respondent No.1 is erroneous.
The compensation awarded is also on the lower side.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:922
13. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.2 - insurance company submits that the
policy issued by respondent No.2 being an act only policy,
the pillion rider is not covered under the policy. Therefore,
no interference is required in respect of the same.
14. In MVC.No.1408/2012 so far as the quantum of
the compensation is concerned, the learned counsel for
the respondent No.2 - insurance company defended the
impugned judgment and submits that the same is just and
adequate.
15. The first aspect to be considered is as to
whether in an 'act policy', pillion rider is covered or not. It
is pertinent to note that the policy issued by the insurance
company produced at Ex.R.1 shows that it is 'act only'
policy. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that in order
to cover the injuries suffered by the pillion rider no
additional premium was paid. As such, the pillion rider is
not covered under the policy conditions. Insofar as the 'act
policy' is concerned, the case of Oriental Insurance
NC: 2025:KHC-K:922
Company Limited vs. Sudhakaran K.V. and others1
settles the proposition of law. Therefore, the impugned
judgment cannot be interfered with. It is pertinent to note
that the Tribunal has referred to the said judgment.
Therefore, the fastening the liability to pay the
compensation on the respondent No.1 in
MVC.No.1408/2012 cannot be interfered with.
16. Insofar as the quantum of the compensation is
concerned, the petitioner in MVC.No.1407/2012 had
suffered the following injuries as per Ex.P.6 :-
1. CLW on dorsum at right hand.
2. CLW on anterior area of knee tenderness present,
bone fragments coming out of wound, ROM
restricted.
3. Right leg deformity present lower 3rd area of shin,
crepitious present.
4. Right foot, CLW over dorsum of foot x-ray shows a
comminuted fracture of supracondylar femur,
fracture of right tibia.
2008 KANT MAC 480 (SC)
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:922
17. The disability was assessed by PW.3 and he
issued the disability certificate as per Ex.P.19. According
to him, there is a disability to the extent of 40% to 45% to
the right lower limb. It is worth to note that he had
observed the fracture of the right femur and restriction of
the movement in the right knee, the fracture of right tibia,
as such the opinion of the PW.3 appears to be proper. The
Tribunal has held the disability of 10%. The petitioner
being 30 years, agriculturist, definitely he suffers for
restriction of movement. As such, the disability deserves
to be enhanced to 15%.
18. The Tribunal has considered the income of the
petitioner at Rs.4,500/- per month. The guidelines issued
by the KSLSA for settlement of disputes before Lok-
Adalath prescribe a notional income of Rs.6,500/- per
month for the year 2012. In umpteen number of
judgments, this Court has held that the guidelines issued
by the KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages
fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, they are
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:922
acceptable. Hence, the notional income of the petitioner is
considered at Rs.6,500/-. Therefore the loss of future
income is calculated as Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 16 x 15% =
Rs.1,87,200/- by taking a multiplier of 16 for the age of 31
years.
19. The loss of earning during the laid up period is
considered for 3 months. As such, the petitioner is entitled
for Rs.6,500 x 3 = Rs.19,500/-.
20. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-
under the head of pain and suffering. The same needs to
be enhanced to Rs.30,000/-.
21. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered
by the petitioner, the compensation under the head of loss
of amenities needs to be enhanced. The same is awarded
at Rs.30,000/-.
22. The compensation under the remaining heads
do not require any enhancement.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:922
23. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for total
enhanced compensation of Rs.1,43,550/- under the
following heads:-
Sl. Heads Compensation Awarded
No. by this Court
1. Loss of future earning Rs.1,87,200/-
capacity
2. Loss of income during Rs.19,500/-
laid up period
3. Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-
4. Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/-
5. Medical expenses Rs.85,889/-
6. Food and Rs.5,000/-
nourishment
Total Rs.3,57,589/-
Less: Awarded by the Rs.2,14,039/-
Tribunal
Total Enhancement Rs.1,43,550/-
24. Insofar as the quantum of compensation in
MVC.No.1408/2012 is concerned, the petitioner had
suffered tenderness over the lumbar area, but there were
no such fractures. However, the PW.3 has issued a
disability certificate as per Ex.P.21 and says that he has
considered 20% to 25% disability to the spine. The
Tribunal has accepted the same at 8% and has awarded
the adequate compensation. In the considered opinion of
this Court, there is no need for any enhancement of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:922
disability. There is no need for any enhancement, except
that the income should be taken at Rs.6,500/- per month.
Hence, the compensation under the head of loss of future
income is calculated as Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 15 x 8% =
Rs.93,600/-.
25. The Tribunal has awarded reasonable
compensation amount towards other heads. The same
need not be disturbed.
26. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for total
enhanced compensation of Rs.28,800/-.
Sl. Heads Compensation Awarded
No. by this Court
1. Loss of earning Rs.93,600/-
capacity
2. Pain and suffering RS.10,000/-
Loss of income during
3. Rs.27,000/-
laid up period
4. Food and Rs.5,000/-
nourishment
5. Medical expenses Rs.20,935/-
Total Rs.1,56,535/-
Less: Awarded by the Rs.1,27,735/-
Tribunal
Total Enhancement Rs.28,800/-
27. Hence, appeals deserve to be allowed in part.
Therefore, the following;
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:922
ORDER
I. The appeals are allowed in part.
II. The appellant in MFA.No.200564/2016
(MVC.No.1407/2012) is entitled for a sum of
Rs.1,43,550/- in addition to what has been awarded
by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. from date of petition till the date of deposit.
III. The appellant in MFA.No.200563/2016
(MVC.No.1408/2012) is entitled for a sum of
Rs.28,800/- in addition to what has been awarded by
the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. from date of petition till the date of deposit.
IV. Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal regarding
liability, deposit etc., remain unaltered.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
TMP/KJJ
CT: AK
