Karnataka High Court
Shri. Karyappa Ningappa Koravi vs Shri. Jyotiba Kallappa Hurude on 29 July, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9353-DB
MFA No. 102293 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102293 OF 2017
(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. KARYAPPA NINGAPPA KORAVI,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: BRICKS-COOLIE, NOW NIL,
R/O. BARAMYANATTI, TQ: DIST: BELAGAVI-591156.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI JYOTIBA KALLAPPA HURUDE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. H.NO. 14/A, LAXMI GALLI, HALGA,
TQ: DIST: BELAGAVI-591156.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High
RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1)N OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO GRANT
THE COMPENSATION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.895/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE XI
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT,
BELAGAVI AT: BELAGAVI, DATED 19/01/2017 BY ALLOWING THIS
APPEAL WITH COST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9353-DB
MFA No. 102293 of 2017
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award
dated 19.01.2017 passed in MVC No.895/2016 by the XI Addl.
District and Sessions Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi at
Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal', for short),
wherein petition filed by the appellant - injured under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
'M.V. Act', for short) was rejected.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on
16.02.2016 at about 7:00 a.m., the petitioner was proceeding
on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/EF-8132 as a
pillion rider and Sri Anil Shindhe was rider of the said
motorcycle. It is averred that when they reached near Udupi
Dhaba on Halga service road, Belagavi, the rider of the
motorcycle rode the same in rash and negligent manner. At
that time, one dog came across the road, suddenly the rider
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9353-DB
HC-KAR
applied the brake due to which the motorcycle skidded and
petitioner fell down along with the motorcycle. Due to the
impact, he sustained fracture to his right hand. Thereafter, he
was immediately shifted to the Vijaya Hospital, Belagavi and
provided treatment.
3. It is averred that the petitioner - injured was aged
about 22 years and working as a coolie in bricks factory and
earning ₹13,000/- per month and due to the accidental
disability, he is unable to continue the work. Hence, he filed a
petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking
compensation.
4. Respondent No.1 filed objections to the claim
petition contending that the vehicle involved in the accident is
duly insured by respondent No.2 and if any liability, respondent
No.2 has to make good of the same. Respondent
No.2/Insurance Company filed separate objections denying the
averments of the claim petition. They have denied the accident,
age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is averred that
there is one day delay in filing the complaint and the rider of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9353-DB
HC-KAR
the motorcycle was not having valid driving licence. Hence,
sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. The Tribunal recorded the evidence, the claimant
examined himself as PW.1 and examined the Doctor as PW.2
and got marked 14 documents at Ex.P.1 to P.14. The
respondent No.2 examined its official as RW.1 and got marked
one document at Ex.R.1. The Tribunal considering the pleadings
and evidence on record came to a conclusion that there is one
day delay in lodging the complaint with regard to the accident.
The Tribunal further recorded the finding that there is a
variation with regard to the stand of the appellant in the Police
complaint and the medical records which does not tally with
each other and came to a conclusion that the Police documents
could not corroborate with the documents on record. Hence,
held that the claimant has failed to prove the case of accidental
injuries and rejected the claim petition. Being aggrieved, the
injured claimant/ appellant filed this appeal.
6. Learned counsel Sri.Harish S. Maigur appearing for
the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave
error in recording the incorrect findings. It is submitted that on
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9353-DB
HC-KAR
16.02.2016 immediately after the accident, the
claimant/injured was admitted at Vijaya Hospital, Belagavi and
provided treatment. The Ex.P.6 to P.10 clearly demonstrate
that the petitioner has sustained grievous injury to his four
fingers of the right hand in the road accident dated 16.02.2016.
It is submitted that the petitioner was provided treatment at
Vijaya Hospital, Belagavi. Hence, immediately on the said date
of the incident, the complaint could not be registered and on
the next day, the brother of the injured reported the accident
to the jurisdictional Police and on investigation, the Police filed
chargesheet against the rider of the motorcycle. It is submitted
that the Tribunal has not appreciated the oral and documentary
evidence on record in its proper perspective and recorded the
incorrect finding and dismissed the claim petition. It is
submitted that due to the accidental injury, the appellant
sustained amputation of four fingers of the right hand. Hence,
as per schedule-I of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923,
the appellant's disability is required to be assessed at 50% and
he is entitled for compensation under the head of loss of future
prospects also. It is further submitted that Ex.P.49 indicates
that the appellant has spent ₹1,27,643/- towards the medical
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9353-DB
HC-KAR
expenses and he has suffered pain and suffering due to the
accident. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by awarding just
and fair compensation.
7. Learned counsel Sri.Subhash J. Baddi appearing for
respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and award
of the Tribunal and submits that Ex.P.2/the complaint indicates
that the appellant sustained burnt injury to his three fingers of
right hand and however, the medical records produced by him
before the Tribunal refers to the injury to his four fingers and
also indicate that four fingers of the appellant's right hand has
been amputated. There is lot of discrepancies between the first
version of the appellant in the complaint at Ex.P.2 and other
medical records. It is further submitted that there is one day
delay in filing the complaint to the Police with regard to the
accident. However, no satisfactory explanation is offered for
such delay, which has created the doubt in the mind of the
Tribunal with regard to the accident and the injuries sustained
by the appellant and appreciating such fact, the Tribunal has
rightly dismissed the claim petition which does not call for any
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9353-DB
HC-KAR
interference in this appeal filed by the injured/claimant. Hence,
he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
8. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the
respondent No.2/Insurance Company and meticulously perused
the materials available on record, including the Tribunal record.
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced. The points that would arise for our
consideration in this appeal are;
1. Whether the Tribunal has justified in dismissing
the claim petition filed by the injured/appellant
under Section 166 of the M.V. Act?
2. If the claim petition of the appellant is allowed,
what is the compensation entitled by the
injured/appellant?
10. The appellant has filed a claim petition under
Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking for compensation for the
injuries suffered by him in a road accident dated 16.02.2016
near Udupi Dhaba on Halga Service road, Belagavi. In support
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9353-DB
HC-KAR
of his claim, the appellant examined himself as PW.1 and
reiterated the averments made in the plaint. The records
indicate that the brother of the appellant has filed a Police
complaint which is marked at Ex.P.2 at Hirebagewadi Police
Station on 17.02.2016, the jurisdictional Police registered FIR
in Crime No.60/2016 for the offences punishable under
Sections 279 and 338 of IPC against the rider of the
motorcycle. The jurisdictional Police after completion of the
investigation, has filed the chargesheet against the rider of the
motorcycle for the negligent riding of the motorcycle. It is not
in dispute that there is a delay in registering the complaint with
the jurisdictional Police. The accident in question was occurred
on 16.02.2016 in between 7 to 8 AM, the complaint at Ex.P.2
was registered on 17.02.2016 i.e., one day after the incident.
The complaint/Ex.P.2 on record indicates that the brother of
the injured has furnished the said information to the Police and
the Police recorded the FIR and in the complaint, it is written
that the appellant has sustained burnt injury to his three
fingers. Be that as it may, Ex.P.6/the wound certificate issued
by the Vijaya Hospital, Belagavi indicate that the appellant was
examined by the duty Doctor on 16.02.2016 at 8:03 AM. The
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9353-DB
HC-KAR
said document/Ex.P.6 also indicate that the appellant was
admitted to the Hospital informing that the alleged history of
road traffic accident near Halga Service road around 7:00 AM.
The wound certificate indicates that the appellant has sustained
burnt injury to his four fingers except thumb. Ex.P.7/the
discharge summary corroborates with the contents of
Ex.P.6/wound certificate with regard to the date of accident and
the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant. Ex.P.8 to P.10
also indicates that the appellant has sustained injury to his four
fingers of right hand and those fingers were amputated. In
support of the claim, the appellant has produced the
photographs at Ex.P.11 which clearly shows that the right
hand's four fingers of the appellant are amputated after
performing surgery at Vijaya Hospital, Belagavi.
11. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has
committed a grave error in coming to the conclusion that there
is a discrepancy in the Police record and the medical record
with regards to the road traffic accident. The oral evidence of
PW.1/injured, Ex.P.1 to P.9 clearly demonstrate that the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9353-DB
HC-KAR
appellant has met with a road accident on 16.02.2016 provided
treatment at Vijaya Hospital, Belagavi and his four fingers were
amputated. The Tribunal has given much weightage to the fact
that there is a delay in registering the complaint. In our
considered view, the Tribunal has committed a grave error in
recording such finding. The records indicate that admittedly the
appellant/injured was admitted in the Hospital after the
accident and he was taken treatment as an inpatient and his
brother has lodged the complaint on very next day. The very
same fact demonstrates that delay is natural as injured was
hospitalized hence delay in registering the FIR which cannot be
held against the injured/appellant. Hence, we are of the
considered view that the Tribunal has committed a grave error
in ignoring the oral and documentary evidence in dismissing the
claim petition which is required to be allowed and the
respondent No.2 insurance company being the insurer of the
vehicle in question is liable to pay the compensation.
12. The pleadings and evidence on record, indicate that
the appellant/injured was aged about 22 years and it was
claimed that he was earning ₹15,000/- per month. However,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9353-DB
HC-KAR
there is no cogent and legally acceptable evidence on record.
This Court and the Lok-Adalaths normally place reliance on the
notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority to assess the income in the motor vehicle
accident claims. In the instant case, the accident is of the year
2016 and as per the chart referred to supra, the notional
income of the injured is required to be assessed at ₹8,750/-
per month. Accordingly, this Court assesses the income of the
injured at ₹8,750/- per month.
13. Schedule 1(2) serial No.7 of the Employees
Compensation Act, 1923 states that for loss of four fingers of
one hand 50% of loss of earning capacity should be considered.
Considering the aforesaid schedule and taking note of the
documentary evidence on record, we assess the disability of the
appellant at 50%. Having assessed the disability at 50%, we
are of the considered view that the appellant is also entitled the
compensation under the head of loss of future prospects at
40% as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others1.
2017 (16) SCC 680
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9353-DB
HC-KAR
Hence, the loss of income due to disability is assessed as
under;
₹8,750+40%x12×18×50% = 13,23,000/-.
14. The records indicate that the appellant was taken
treatment as an inpatient for a period of 9 days and undergone
surgery and suffered amputation. Considering the age, nature
of treatment proved, we are of the considered view that the
appellant is entitled compensation of ₹50,000/- under the head
of pain and suffering and ₹50,000/- under the head of loss of
amenities. The appellant was inpatient for a period of 9 days
and thereafter, he required substantial period to recover from
the injuries suffered by him, hence we award ₹26,250/- under
the head of loss of income during laid up period [8,750/-x3
months]. The appellant is entitled to ₹10,000/- under the head
of diet, conveyance and attendant charges. Ex.P.13 is the
medical bills which are 49 in numbers, if that is calculated, the
appellant has spent ₹94,643/- towards the medical expenses.
15. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation
under the various heads:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9353-DB
HC-KAR
1 Pain and suffering ₹ 50,000/-
2 Loss of amenities ₹ 50,000/-
3 Medical expenses ₹ 94,643/-
4 Loss of future earning capacity ₹ 13,23,000/-
due to disability
5 Loss of income during laid up period ₹ 26,250/-
6 Diet, conveyance and attendant ₹ 10,000/-
charges
TOTAL ₹ 15,53,893/-
Thus, the claimant would be entitled for the total
compensation of ₹ 15,53,893/-.
16. Normally, this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court
taking note of prevailing rate of interest paid on the fixed
deposit by the nationalized banks, would award interest at 6%
per annum. Therefore, in the present case also, the claimant is
entitled to interest on the compensation amount at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment dated 19.01.2017
passed by the XI-Additional District and
Sessions Judge and Additional MACT,
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9353-DB
HC-KAR
Belagavi, in MVC No.895/2016, is hereby
set aside, the claim petition in MVC
No.895/2016 is allowed and the appellant is
entitled to total compensation of
₹15,53,893/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till date of payment.
iii. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall
deposit the compensation amount within a
period of eight [8] weeks before the
Tribunal.
iv. Registry to transmit the records to the
Tribunal forthwith.
v. Draw the award accordingly.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
CLK, PJ-para 5 to end
CT-AN
