Karnataka High Court
Shri.Satish Pundalic Pote vs Sri.Jotiba S/O. Ragunath Kalasekar on 14 November, 2025
-1-
MFA No.103606/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103606 OF 2019
BETWEEN
SHRI SATISH PUNDALIC POTE
AGE : 33 YEARS,
OCC : SERVICE (NOW NIL),
R/O. HOUSE NO.819, SHIVAJI
NAGAR
KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI-
591302.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. GEETHA K.M. ADVOCATE-THROUGH VC)
AND
1. SRI JOTIBA,
S/O. RAGUNATH KALASEKAR
AGE : MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS,
A/P: DESUR,
Digitally signed by
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590014
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
(OWNER OF THE TRUCK KA-22/A 7759)
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2025.11.15
10:24:51 +0530 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
R/BY IT'S DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
MARUTI GALLI,
BELAGAVI-590001.
(INSURER OF THE TRUCK KA-22/A-7759)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
(R1-NOTICE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
MFA No.103606/2019
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT 1988 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 27.04.2019 PASSED BY IN THE COURT OF
IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT V BELAGAVI, IN
MVC NO.858/2018 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS
CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BY HOLDING THAT THE
INSURANCE COMPANY IS LIABLE TO PAY THE SAME IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
07.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)
This appeal by the claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award
dated 27.04.2019 passed in M.V.C. No.858/2018 passed by the
IV Additional District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Belagavi (for short, 'the Tribunal'), not being satisfied with the
quantum of compensation and praying for enhanced
compensation.
2. Parties are referred with their ranks, as they were
before Tribunal for sake of convenience and clarity.
3. Claimants have filed the petition U/S.163-A of MV Act
praying for compensation for the road traffic accident occurred
on 22.01.2017.
4. Brief facts of the case are that claimant is the injured
person who sustained injuries in a road traffic accident that
occurred on 22.01.2017 involving car bearing number MH-10/E-
9518 and truck bearing KA-22/A-7759 on Khanapur-Belagavi
Road. It is stated that the truck came and hit the car and the
claimant, being an inmate of the car, sustained grievous injuries.
He further stated that he was aged about 31 years as on the
date of accident and was earning ₹3,300/- per month.
5. Respondent No.1 appeared through his counsel but
did not file objection statement. Respondent No.2-insurer filed its
objection statement denying the liability, the cause of accident,
nature of injuries, treatment taken by the claimant, medical
expenses, age, income and occupation of the claimant. It further
contented that owner and insurer of the car bearing registration
number MH-10/E-9518 are proper and necessary parties and the
petition was bad for non-joiner of necessary parties and also
contended that driver of the truck was not having a valid driving
licence. With these objections it prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
6. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1, doctor as
P.W.2, got marked Ex.P.1 to P.16 and closed his side. On behalf
of respondents, the Officer of respondent No.2-insurer was
examined as R.W.1 apart from marking Ex.R.1 and R.2 and
closed its side.
7. After recording evidence of both sides and hearing
arguments of both sides, the Tribunal considering the monthly
income of Rs.3,300/- per month, as claimed by the claimant,
assessed the annual income at ₹39,600/-, considering the age of
injured as 31 years adopted multiplier 16, and further
considering the disability as deposed by doctor at 50% to the
particular limb, assessed the disability as 15% to the whole body
and granted total compensation of ₹1,15,040/-.
8. Aggrieved by the same, claimant/appellant has
preferred the present appeal praying for enhancement of the
compensation.
9. Learned counsel for appellant Smt. Geeta K.M.,
appeared through Video Conference would submit that the total
compensation ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal by
taking into consideration the income of the injured at ₹40,000/-
per month and the interest on the compensation ought to have
been awarded at 9% per annum. She would further submit that
as the age of the claimant was 31 years as on the date of the
accident, the relevant multiplier is 17, but the Tribunal has taken
it wrongly as 16. Learned counsel would further submit that the
Tribunal ought to have awarded the actual medical expenses of
₹2,00,000/- and ₹1,00,000/- towards future medical expenses.
There was 100% disability in respect of capacity of the claimant
in doing his skilled job. According to doctor, there is 90%
disability to both bones, ₹10,000/- ought to have been awarded
towards loss of amenities. The Tribunal has not awarded
compensation towards nutrition and attendant charges, loss of
income during laid up period, and towards conveyance of the
appellant. Hence, she prayed for allowing the appeal.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 Smt. Preethi
Sashank would submit that claimant is entitled to interest only at
6% per annum and not 9% as claimed by him. She would submit
that 15% disability taken by the Tribunal to the whole body is
correct and even if the amount of ₹40,000/- was taken as the
income of injured, there will not be much difference in the
compensation. Hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.
11. Having heard the arguments of both sides and on
perusal of the appeal papers, the only point that arises for
consideration in this appeal is:
Whether the impugned judgment and award of
the Tribunal needs interference?
12. My answer to the above point would be partly in
"affirmative" for the following reasons:
(a) There is no serious dispute about the occurrence of
accident, place of accident, date, time of the accident on
22.01.2017 between two vehicles i.e. Car bearing
registration number MH-10/E-9518 and Truck bearing
registration number KA-22/A-759; age of the claimant and
the injuries sustained by him in the accident are also not in
dispute.
(b) The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the MV
Act, and the said provision provides for awarding
compensation based on a structured formula as per the
Second Schedule of the MV Act for the injuries suffered, or
the death in an accident.
(c) Admittedly in the present case, the appellant/claimant has
sustained grievous injuries i.e. he has sustained fractures.
P.W.2-doctor has stated the nature of injuries sustained by
the claimant. Thus doctor opined that there is 40%
disability to the whole body as per WHO, ALIMCOI and
Government notification. Thus the Tribunal has taken the
disability at 15% to the whole body and calculated the
income, calculated the compensation. Taking of 15% and
age of injured as 31 years by the Tribunal is correct.
However the multiplier considered by Tribunal at 16 is
wrong. It ought to have been at 17 as per the second
schedule. The income of the injured is to be taken at
₹40,000/- and not at ₹39,600/-. Considering the above,
the claimant/appellant would be entitled to compensation
of Rs.1,02,000/- shall be (Rs.40,000/-x15% x 17) under
the head 'loss of future earnings' instead of ₹95,040/- as
awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not awarded
compensation in respect of grievous injuries at ₹1,000/-
which the claimant is entitled to. Insofar as compensation
towards 'pain and suffering' and 'medical expenses' is
concerned, the Tribunal has correctly awarded the
compensations at ₹5,000/- and ₹15,000/- respectively.
Hence it needs no interference.
(d) Thus, the total compensation that is required to be
awarded in favour of the claimant is as under:
1. Loss of future earnings Rs. 1,02,000/-
2. Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/-
3. Medical expenses Rs. 15,000/-
4. Grievous injury Rs. 1,000/-
Total Rs. 1,23,000/-
Thus, the claimant would be entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.1,23,000/- as against Rs.1,15,040/-
awarded by the Tribunal. As the claim petition is one under
Section 163-A of the MV Act, the rashness and negligence
on the part of driver need not be looked into, and the
liability of respondent No.2-insurer is covered. Considering
these factors, the impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal requires modification to the above extent of
enhancement of compensation, and the other part of the
judgment of Tribunal would remain intact.
13. In the result, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
(i) The above appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is
modified to an extent that the claimant is entitled to
a total compensation of Rs.1,23,000/- as against
Rs.1,15,040/- awarded by the Tribunal.
(iii) The enhanced compensation amount will bear
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date
of claim petition till the date of realization.
(iv) Respondent No.2-insurance company shall deposit
the enhanced compensation amount with accrued
interest before the Tribunal within four weeks from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
(v) The disbursement and deposit of the enhanced
compensation shall be as per the award of the
Tribunal.
(vi) No order as to costs.
(vii) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
KMS
CT-CMU, LIST NO.:
