Karnataka High Court
Mehaboob S/O Babusab Multani vs Krishna S/O Yallappa Bajantri on 11 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789
MFA No. 101144 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101144 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. MEHABOOB S/O BABUSAB MULTANI
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE &
BUSINESS, R/O. KOUJALAGI,
TALUKA: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANJAY S KATAGERI, ADV)
AND:
1. SHRI. KRISHNA S/O YALLAPPA BAJANTRI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. GANDHI NAGAR, MUNAVALLI,
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM
(DRIVER OF THE TRUCK BEARING
NO.KA-24/9595).
2. SHRI. VIRUPAKSHAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA
BURJI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. MUNAVALLI, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM (OWNER OF THE TRUCK
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
BEARING NO.KA-24/9595).
3. SHRI. ARVIND M. DALVAI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC:NIL,
Digitally signed
by R/O.KAUJALAGI, TALUK: GOKAK,
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR DIST: BELGAUM (OWNER OF THE SCORPIO
Date:
2025.09.17 CAR BEARING NO.KA-04/MD-8451)
15:46:03 +0530
4. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM
(INSURER OF THE SCORPIO CAR
BEARING NO.KA-04/MD-8451)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADV FOR R4,
NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 ARE SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789
MFA No. 101144 of 2014
HC-KAR
MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DTD:31.12.2013, PASSED IN MVC.NO.1356/2011 ON THE
FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-I AND PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BELGAUM,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
'M.V.Act,' for short) by the petitioner, challenging the
judgment and award dated 31.12.2013 passed in MVC
No.1356/2011 by the MACT- I and Principal District
Judge, Belgaum.
2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are
as follows:
3. The petitioner in MVC No.1356/2011 was traveling
along with one Sangappa in a Scorpio Car bearing
Registration No.KA-04/MD-8451, on 17.01.2011 from
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789
HC-KAR
Belgaum towards Gokak. When the said Scorpio
reached near the spot of accident, a truck bearing
registration No. KA-24/9595 came from opposite
direction and collided with the Scorpio Car. As a
result, the petitioner and Sangappa sustained grievous
injuries. Hence, Sangappa and the petitioner filed
claim petitions under Section 166 of the M.V Act,
seeking for compensation on account of the injuries
sustained in the road traffic accident.
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., the owner and the driver
of the Truck in question, filed a statement of
objections denying the averments made in the claim
petition, and contended that the accident occurred
solely due to the negligence on the part of the Scorpio
car and not on the part of the driver of the Truck. It is
contended that driver of the Truck in question was
possessing a valid and effective driving license as of
the date of accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789
HC-KAR
claim petition against the driver and the owner of the
Truck in question.
5. Insurance company filed a statement of objections
denying the averments made in the claim petition, and
contended that the Scorpio car is a commercial vehicle
and the passengers are not allowed to travel in the
said vehicle and the policy does not cover the
passengers and no additional premium was paid by
the owner of the Scorpio. Hence, on these grounds,
prays to dismiss the claim petition.
6. The Tribunal, clubbed both claim petitions and framed
the separate issues.
7. The petitioner in MVC No.1356/2011 was examined as
PW.2 and examined a doctor as PW.3 and marked 76
documents as Exs.P1 to P76. The officer of the
Insurance Company was examined as RW.1 and
marked 2 documents as Exs.R1 to R2. The tribunal,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789
HC-KAR
after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence,
allowed the claim petition in part and awarded
compensation of Rs.1,49,003/- to the petitioner,
against respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., the owner and
the driver of the Truck in question and dismissed the
claim petition against the owner and Insurance
Company of the Scorpio.
8. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation in MVC No.1356/2011, and also
dismissal of the claim petition against the owner and
the insurance company of the Scorpio vehicle, filed
this Appeal.
9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, and learned counsel for the Insurance
Company.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was an inmate in the Scorpio and he is a
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789
HC-KAR
third party. He is entitled to claim compensation
against the Insurance Company of the Scorpio. He
submits that the Tribunal committed an error in
dismissing the claim petition against the owner and
the Insurance Company of the Scorpio Car. He also
submits that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
on lower side. To prove the disability, the petitioner
had examined a doctor as PW.3. He has opined that
the petitioner has suffered comminuted fracture of
neck, humerus right shoulder, fracture to the right
side ribs, multiple injuries over right shoulder,
grievous injury to right arm, and grievous injury to all
over the body. He has opined that permanent physical
disability of 50% in the right shoulder joint due to the
fracture of upper end and in the neck of the right
humerus bone and in the right shoulder joint and in
the 2nd and 3rd ribs in the right side of the chest.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789
HC-KAR
11. The Tribunal without considering the wound certificate
issued by PW.3, assessed the disability. The petitioner
has examined a doctor and there is no rebuttal
evidence from the respondents' side. The Tribunal
could have assessed the disability to some extent, but
the Tribunal has not assessed any permanent physical
disability. Considering the evidence of PW.3, and
medical records produced by the petitioner, the
injuries sustained by him are grievous in nature.
Hence, he submits that the Tribunal has committed an
error for not assessing the permanent disability.
Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the
appeal.
12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
Insurance Company of Scorpio Car submits that a
criminal case has been registered against the driver of
the Truck in question and no criminal case is
registered against the driver of the Scorpio Car. He
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789
HC-KAR
submits that the petitioner has not examined any eye
witnesses to prove that there was a contributory
negligence on the part of the driver of the Scorpio car.
He submits that the Tribunal was justified in
dismissing the claim petition against the owner and
the Insurance Company of the Scorpio vehicle.
13. He also submits that the contributory negligence
cannot be presumed without direct or corroborative
evidence. To buttress his arguments, he has placed
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of PRABHAVATHI AND OTHERS VS. THE
MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANGALORE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, reported in 2025 LIVE LAW
SC 266. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to
dismiss the appeal.
14. Perused the records, and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789
HC-KAR
15. The points that arise for consideration are about the
liability and the quantum of compensation.
Reg. Liability:
16. It is not in dispute that the petitioner met with an
accident and sustained grievous injuries. To prove
that the accident was occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the Truck in question,
the petitioner has produced the charge sheet marked
as Ex.P7, which discloses that the accident occurred
due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the Truck in question, and further no complaint is filed
against the driver of the Scorpio Car. The petitioner
has contended that driver of the Scorpio car was
driving the Car in a rash and negligent manner. The
petitioner has not lodged complaint against the driver
of the Scorpio Car, and the charge sheet has not been
filed. Though the petitioner is an inmate in the
Scorpio Car, he has not examined any other inmates
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789
HC-KAR
of the Car to prove that the driver of the Scorpio was
driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner,
and contributed for the cause of accident. Thus, the
Tribunal was justified in recording the finding that the
accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the Truck, and there is no negligence on the
part of the driver of the Scorpio car and has rightly
dismissed the claim petition against the owner and the
insurance company of the Scorpio car. Hence, the
point for consideration on the liability is answered
accordingly.
Reg. Quantum of compensation:
17. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is an
agriculturist and was doing business and earning more
than Rs.15,000/- per month. To substantiate the
income, the petitioner has not produced any income
proof. In the absence of income proof, the Tribunal
should have taken a notional income as per the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789
HC-KAR
schedule notified by the Karnataka Legal Services
Authority. The accident is of the year 2011. The
Tribunal has rightly assessed the notional monthly
income of the petitioner at Rs.6,000/-. Further, the
petitioner was aged about 37 as of the date of
accident and hence the 40% prospects must be added.
The petitioner examined a doctor as PW.3 to prove his
disability. Doctor has treated the petitioner and issued
disability certificate, wherein he has opined that the
petitioner has suffered 50% disability in respect of
right upper limb. The tribunal has not assessed the
disability and further the Tribunal has not considered
evidence of PW.3 and medical records. Considering
the evidence of PW.3 and medical records, this court
re-assess the permanent disability at 10%.
18. Considering the oral evidence of the parties, this court
reassess the compensation under the following heads;
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789
HC-KAR
Compensation awarded in Rs.
Sl.
Heads of compensation By the
No. By this Court
Tribunal
1 Loss of future earning due to
disability 24,000 1,51,200
(Rs.8,400/-x12x15x10%)
2 Pain and suffering 30,000 50,000
3 Food, Nourishment, and
5,000 20,000
Attendant charges
4 Loss of Amenities - 25,000
5 Medical and other expenses 91,003 91,003
6 Loss of income during the
laid up period - 16,800
(Rs. 8,400x 2)
Total : 1,49,003/- 3,54,003/-
Enhanced compensation
Rs.2,05,000/-
(Rs. 3,54,003- 1,49,003)
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to total
compensation of Rs. 3,54,003/- as against Rs.1,49,003/-.
Thus, the petitioner is entitled to the enhanced
compensation of Rs.2,05,000/-.
19. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11789
HC-KAR
ii. The judgment and award passed in MVC
No.1356/2011 is modified.
iii. The petitioner is entitle to an enhanced
compensation of Rs.2,05,000/-with interest
@ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the
date of realization.
iv. The driver and the owner of the Truck in
question - respondents No.1 and 2 are
directed to deposit the compensation amount
within eight weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of this order.
v. The office is directed to transmit the trial
court records.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
SKS
CT: BSB
