Karnataka High Court
Shri.Wasim S/O Gouss Mulla vs Shri.Sunil S/O Shivaji Chavan on 16 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12292
MFA No. 103396 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103396 OF 2015 (MV-)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. WASIM S/O GOUSS MULLA
AGE:30 YEARS, OCC: MASONARY
WORK (NOW NIL), R/O:MUSLIM GALLI,
KAKATI, TQ: & DIST:BELAGAVI
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.M. PATIL, ADV)
AND:
1. SHRI. SUNIL S/O SHIVAJI CHAVAN
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O:AT/POST: KHEDE, MUNGUSWADI
TQ: AJARA, DT:KOLHAPUR (OWNER OF
MOTOR CYCLE NO.MH-09/CS-3284)
2. UNITE INDIA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MARUTI GALLI,
MOHANKUMAR
BELAGAVI (INSURER OF MOTOR CYCLE
B SHELAR BEARING REG NO.MH-09/CS-3284
POLICY NO.1603063113P106510708
VALID FROM 8.1.2014 TO 7.1.2015)
Location:
HIGH 3. SHRI. JABBAR ABDUL RAHIM MULLA
COURT OF AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS
KARNATAKA
R/O:MUSLIM GALLI, KAKATI, TQ: & DIST: BELAGAVI
(OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO. MH-09/BS-5542)
4. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MARUTI GALLI,
BELAGAVI (INSURER OF MOTOR CYCLE
BEARING REG NO.MH-09/BS-5542
POLICY NO.1603063113PP104596320
VALID FROM 12.10.2013 TO 11.10.2014)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12292
MFA No. 103396 of 2015
HC-KAR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S. ARANI, ADV FOR R2,
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH,
NOTICE TO R1 & R4 ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.04.2015, PASSED IN MVC
NO.802/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
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 appellant-claimant, challenging the judgment
and award dated 24.04.2015 passed in MVC No.802/2014
by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, and
Additional MACT, Belagavi.
2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this
appeal, are as follows:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12292
HC-KAR
3. On 16.03.2014, at 18.15 hours, the petitioner
was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.MH-
09/BS-5542 from Gadahinglaj to Ajara. When he came near
new petrol pump of Koulage village, the rider of the
motorcycle bearing Reg.No.MH-09/CS-3284 came from
opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner, and
dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner. Due to the said
impact, the petitioner fell and sustained grievous injuries.
The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the
M.V.Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by
him in a road traffic accident.
4. The owners of both motorcycles appeared
through the counsel, but did not file the statement of
objections.
5. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4-the Insurance
Company filed a statement of objections denying the
averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that
the riders of the motorcycles did not possess a valid and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12292
HC-KAR
effective driving license as of the date of accident. Hence,
prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance
Company.
6. The pillion rider also filed the claim petition. The
Tribunal, clubbed both claim petitions, and based on the
pleadings of the parties, framed the separate relevant
issues.
7. The petitioner, to substantiate his case,
examined himself as P.W.1, examined the doctor as P.W.3,
and marked 63 documents as Exs.P1 to P63. On the other
hand, the respondents have not led oral or documentary
evidence. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and
documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part
with costs, and awarded compensation of Rs.2,58,000/-
with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the
petition till realisation. It is held that Respondent Nos. 1 and
2, being the owner and the insurer of the motor cycle
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12292
HC-KAR
bearing Reg.No.MH-09/CS-3284 are jointly and severally
liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
8. The petitioner, aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation awarded in MVC No.802/2014, filed this
Miscellaneous First Appeal.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the
lower side, and prays to allow the appeal.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company submits that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and proper, and do not call for any
interference by this court. Hence, on these grounds, he
prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. Perused the records, and considered the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12292
HC-KAR
13. The point, that would arise for consideration is
regarding the quantum of compensation.
14. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of
the accident, and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in
a road traffic accident. The Tribunal was justified in
recording a finding that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending
motorcycle bearing Reg.No.MH-09/CS-3284.
Reg. Quantum of compensation:
15. It is contended that the petitioner was working
as a mason, and was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. To prove his
income, the petitioner has not produced any income proof.
However, the Tribunal has taken Rs.7,000/- p.m., which is
on the lower side. In the absence of proof of income, the
Tribunal should have taken the notional income as per the
schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority. The accident occurred in 2014, and the notional
income of the petitioner is taken at Rs.7,500/- p.m. The
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12292
HC-KAR
petitioner was aged 29 years old as of the date of the
accident. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age
group is '17'. To prove the disability, the petitioner
examined the doctor as P.W.3. He opined that the petitioner
has sustained disability to the extent of 40%. However, the
Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability to the whole
body at 10%, which is on the lower side. Considering the
evidence of the doctor, and the medical records, this court
is of the opinion that the percentage of disability assessed
by the Tribunal is on the lower side. This court re-asses the
permanent disability to the whole body
at 15%.
16. Thus, this court on re-assessment of the entire
evidence on record, awards the following compensation:
Compensation awarded in Rs.
Sl.
Heads of compensation By the By this
No.
Tribunal Court
3 Pain and suffering 30,000/- 50,000/-
4 Loss of income during the 22,500/-
21,000/-
laid up period (Rs.7,500 x 3)
5 Loss of future earning due 2,29,500/-
to disability 1,42,800/- (Rs.7,500/-
x12x17x15%)
6 Los of life expectancy 10,000/- --
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12292
HC-KAR
Medical expenses 34,000/- 34,000/-
Conveyance and
nourishment and attendant 5,000/- 15,000/-
charges
7 Loss of amenities 15,000/- 25,000/-
Total : 2,57,800/-
3,76,000/-
Rounded off to 2,58,000/-
Enhanced compensation 1,18,000/-
17. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and the award
passed by the Tribunal is hereby,
modified.
(iii) The petitioner is entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.3,76,000/- as against
Rs.2,58,000/- awarded by the Tribunal
with interest at 9% per annum from the
date of petition till realisation of the
amount.
(iv) The Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the enhanced compensation with
accrued interest within 8 weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12292
HC-KAR
(v) The Tribunal records, and the amount in
deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the
Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
MBS
CT: BSB
