Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Ravi And Anr on 2 July, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3590
MFA No. 201450 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 201027 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201450 OF 2018 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201027 OF 2018(MV-I)
IN M.F.A.NO.201450/2018
BETWEEN:
RAVI
S/O SWAMI GOLLAR,
AGE: 16 YEARS (MINOR),
OCC: STUDENT,
THROUGH HIS MINOR GUARDIAN,
NATURAL FATHER BY NAME
SWAMI
S/O DALIBA GOLLAR,
AGE: 48 YEARS,
Digitally signed OCC: BUSINESS,
by NIJAMUDDIN R/O: TALIKOTI,
JAMKHANDI TQ: MUDDEBIHAL,
Location: HIGH DIST: VIJAYAPUR - 586 101
COURT OF ...APPELLANT
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B.YADAV, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHANDASAB
S/O BASHASAB AKKALAKOTE,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: TIPPUSULTAN CIRCLE,
MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3590
MFA No. 201450 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 201027 of 2018
HC-KAR
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
HERELAGI BUILDING, BEHIND SIDDESHWAR TEMPLE
VIJAYAPURA, POLICY NO.604004/31/11/6700005963
PERIOD:17.03.2012 TO 16.03.2013 - 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL, THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 15.03.2018 IN MVC NO.28/2014 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT-VIII AT MUDDEBIHAL, MAY KINDLY BE
MODIFIED BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE
CLAIM PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.201027/2018
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
HERELAGI BUILDING,
BEHIND SIDDESHWAR TEMPLE,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAVI
S/O SWAMI GOLLAR,
AGE: 16 YEARS MINOR,
THROUGH HIS MINOR GUARDIAN,
NATURAL FATHER BY NAME
SWAMI S/O DALIBA GOLLAR,
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: TALIKOTI,
TQ: MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3590
MFA No. 201450 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 201027 of 2018
HC-KAR
2. CHANDASAB
S/O BASHASAB AKKALAKOTE,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: TIPPU SULTAN CIRCLE,
MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
15.03.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VIII
MUDDEBIHAL, IN M.V.C.NO.28/2014 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AS
PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE MFA'S, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 15.03.2018
passed by Senior Civil Judge and MACT-VIII, Muddebihal in
MVC no.28/2014, these appeals are filed. While MFA
no.201450/2018 is filed by claimant for enhancement, MFA
no.201027/2018 is filed by insurer challenging quantum.
2. Sri Manavendra Reddy, learned counsel submitted
that appeal was by insurer challenging award insofar as
compensation towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3590
HC-KAR
as being contrary to law. It was submitted, as per claimants, on
03.04.2012, at about 12:30 p.m., minor Ravi, aged 12 years,
was riding pillion with one Kashinath on motorcycle bearing
no.KA-28/V-6610. When they were near Doni bridge on
Talikoti-Vijayapura road, driver of Maxi Cab bearing no.KA-
28/5575 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and hit
motorcycle, resulting in accident. As result, minor claimant and
rider sustained grievous injuries. Despite treatment, minor
sustained permanent physical disability and loss of future
earning capacity. Accordingly, claim petitions were filed in MVC
nos.28/2014 and 26/2014 by minor and rider respectively. Both
were clubbed and tried together.
3. On service of notice, owner denied occurrence of
accident, age, occupation, income and disability. However, it
was stated, driver was holding valid driving license and vehicle
was duly insured with insurer. Insurer opposed claim petition
not only contending that claim in excessive, but also on ground
of contributory negligence on rider of motorcycle and alleging
violation of policy conditions.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3590
HC-KAR
4. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence. Kashinath, father of claimant and doctor
were examined as PWs,1 to 3 and documents were marked as
Exs.P-1 to P-22. The insurer examined its official as RW-1 and
marked insurance policy as Ex.R-1.
5. On appreciation of evidence, tribunal held that
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Maxi Cab
by its driver and awarded compensation from insurer as
follows:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
2 Traveling, nourishment and attendant Rs.5,000/-
charges
3 Medical expenses Rs.14,000/-
4 Loss of amenities Rs.5,000/-
5 Loss of earning capacity due to Rs.1,00,000/-
disablement
Total Rs.1,74,000/-
6. Dissatisfied with assessment insurer was in appeal.
7. It was submitted, admittedly claimant in MVC
no.28/2014 was a boy ages 12 years. He sustained fractural
injures, assessed by PW-3 at 10% permanent physical
disability. Taking note of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3590
HC-KAR
Court in case of Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2014) 14 SCC 396] tribunal
awarded Rs.1,00,000/- under first slab. Apart from lump sum
compensation, tribunal could have granted medical expenses
and other incidental expenses etc., but it could not have
granted compensation towards pain and suffering or loss of
amenities. Hence, prayed for reduction.
8. On other hand, Sri Gopalkrishna B Yadav, learned
counsel for claimant opposed insurer's appeal as being devoid
of merits. It was submitted, assessment of compensation by
tribunal was on lower side and sought enhancement. It was
submitted compensation of Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of
amenities and traveling and other expenses was also on lower
side. Even when minor were inpatient for 10 days, there is no
award under head of loss of income of parents during
treatment period. On said grounds, sought enhancement.
9. Heard counsel and perused impugned judgment and
award.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3590
HC-KAR
10. From above, since both claimant as well as insurer
are in appeal against assessment of tribunal on quantum, point
that would arise for consideration is:
"Whether assessment of compensation by tribunal
calls for interference?"
11. Said point is answered in negative for following
reasons.
12. As per ration in Master Mallikarjun (supra),
there was no justification by tribunal to award Rs.50,000/- and
Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities
respectively. At same time, award towards nourishment and
other incidental expenses at Rs.5,000/- would be grossly
inadequate. Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss
of income of parents during period of treatment i.e. three
months, as claimant sustained fractural injuries. Notional
income for year 2012 was Rs.6,500/-, it would be Rs.19,500/-
in case of each parent. This would affect scope for reduction in
insurers appeal. Thus, I do not find justification to interfere
with impugned award.
13. Accordingly, following:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3590
HC-KAR
ORDER
Both appeals are dismissed.
Registry is directed to forthwith transmit amount in
deposit in insurer's appeal to tribunal for payment.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
NJ
