Karnataka High Court
Maharudrappa S/O Veerappa Hulageri vs Veeranagouda S/O Basanagouda Kotabal on 22 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886
MFA No. 102575 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 100873 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102575 OF 2015 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100873 OF 2015
IN MFA NO.102575/2015
BETWEEN:
MAHARUDRAPPA S/O. VEERAPPA HULAGERI,
AGE:32 YEARS,
OCC:MASON (GOUNDI),
R/O: NAREGAL, TQ: RON,
DIST: GADAG.
NOW R/O RAJIVGANDHINAGAR GADAG.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.DEEPAK MAGANUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VEERANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA KOTABAL,
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: NEAR OLD BUS-STAND,
MOHANKUMAR NAREGAL, TQ: RON,
B SHELAR
DIST: GADAG.
2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
Location: GADAG BRANCH OFFICE,
HIGH
COURT OF RENUKA ARCADE, STATION ROAD,
KARNATAKA GADAG.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S K KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
17.12.2014, PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT GADAG, IN MVC NO.10/2011, AND
AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886
MFA No. 102575 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 100873 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN MFA NO.100873/2015
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
GADAG BRANCH,
OFF: RENUKA ARCADE,
STATION ROAD, GADAG
NOW REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, II FLOOR,
ARIHANT PLAZA, KUSUGAL ROAD,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALI - 580023.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MAHARUDRAPPA S/O. VEERAPPA HULAGERI,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: MASON (GOUNDI),
R/O. NAREGAL TQ: RON,
NOW R/AT RAJIVGANDHINAGAR,
GADAG.
2. VEERANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA KOTABAL,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. NEAR OLD BUS-STAND,
NAREGAL, TQ: RON
DIST: GADAG
(OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING
REG NO.KA 26/TA-976)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DEEPAK S. MAGANUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SRVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS
PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
17.12.2014 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AND MACT, GADAD, IN MVC NO.10/2011, WITH COST IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886
MFA No. 102575 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 100873 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
These appeals arise out of the same judgment and
award dated 17.12.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.10/2011 by
the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, and M.A.C.T.,
Gadag.
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these
appeals are as follows:
On 12.11.2010 at about 5.30 p.m., the petitioner and
one Ishwaragouda were proceeding on Naregal-Dyampur
road. At Nagarkeri, a tractor engine bearing registration
No.KA-26/TA-976 came from the opposite direction in a
rash and negligent manner, at a high speed and dashed to
the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous
injuries and filed a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.
Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained.
Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.
3. The owner of the tractor filed a statement of
objections denying the averments made in the claim
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886
HC-KAR
petition and contended that the accident had occurred due
to the negligent act of the petitioner. It is also contended
that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid
and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident.
It is further contended that the tractor is insured with the
Insurance Company and the policy was in force as of the
date of the accident. Hence, the Insurance Company is
liable to pay the compensation. Hence, prays to dismiss the
claim petition against the owner of the offending vehicle.
4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of
objections denying the averments made in the claim
petition and contended that the driver of the offending
vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence
as of the date of the accident. There is a breach of policy
conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition
against the Insurance Company.
5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the
parties, framed the relevant issues.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886
HC-KAR
6. The petitioner, to substantiate his case,
examined himself as PW-1, examined the doctor through
the Court Commissioner as PW-2 and marked 29 documents
as Exs.P-1 to P-29. Conversely, neither the owner nor the
officer of the Insurance Company has entered the witness
box, but the owner of the offending vehicle marked 3
documents as Exs.R-1 to R-3 with consent, and the
Insurance Company marked the policy as Ex.R-4.
7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and
documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part
vide judgment dated 17.12.2014 and awarded a
compensation of Rs.1,17,150/- with interest at the rate of
6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit and held that
the owner and Insurance Company are jointly and severally
liable to pay the compensation amount and directed the
Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount.
8. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the
impugned judgment and award, preferred the appeal in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886
HC-KAR
M.F.A.No.100873/2015 and the petitioner, being dissatisfied
with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
preferred the appeal in M.F.A. No.102575/2015.
9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company
submits that the alleged offending vehicle has been falsely
implicated. He also submits that the petitioner, colluding
with the Police, filed a charge sheet against the driver of the
offending vehicle. He also submits that there was a delay in
lodging the complaint. Hence, on these grounds, he prays
to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and to
dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner.
11. Per contra, counsel for the petitioner submits
that the Police, after investigation filed a charge sheet
against the driver of the offending vehicle. Neither the
driver nor the Insurance Company have challenged the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886
HC-KAR
charge sheet. Thus, the Tribunal, considering the charge
sheet, has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending
vehicle and rightly fastened the liability jointly and severally
on the owner and the Insurance Company of the offending
vehicle. He also submits that the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays to allow
the appeal filed by the petitioner and to dismiss the appeal
filed by the Insurance Company.
12. Perused the records, and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
13. The points that would arise for consideration are
regarding the liability and quantum of compensation.
Regarding liability:
14. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of
the accident and the petitioner having sustained injuries in
the road traffic accident. The petitioner, to prove that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886
HC-KAR
the driver of the offending vehicle, produced a charge sheet
marked as Ex.P-3, which is filed against the driver of the
Tractor.
15. The Insurance Company has taken a specific
defence that there was a delay in lodging the complaint.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi vs.
Badrinarayan and others1 has held that the delay in lodging
the First Information Report cannot be a ground to doubt
the claimant's case. It has further held that in Indian
conditions, it is not expected that a person could run to rush
to the Police Station after the accident, and that the
treatment of the victim is given priority rather than lodging
the First Information Report.
16. Considering the proposition laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi referred to supra,
the Tribunal was justified in recording its finding that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the offending vehicle and rightly fastened the
(2011) 4 SCC 693
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886
HC-KAR
liability on the owner and the Insurance Company of the
offending vehicle, jointly and severally. In view of the same,
the point regarding liability is answered accordingly.
Regarding quantum of compensation:
17. Though, the petitioner has contended that he
was a mason earning Rs.200/- per day, to prove his
income, he has not produced any income proof. In the
absence of income proof, the income has to be assessed as
per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority. The accident occurred in 2010. As per
the schedule, the notional income is to be assessed at
Rs.5,500/- p.m. The petitioner, to prove his disability,
examined the doctor as PW-2, who has deposed that he
examined the petitioner clinically and radiologically and
issued the disability certificate marked as Ex.P-7. He further
deposed that the petitioner has suffered 45% disability,
however in the cross-examination, it is stated that the
petitioner has sustained the disability to the extent of 18%
to 20% to a particular limb and the Tribunal has considered
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886
HC-KAR
the disability at 5% which is on the lower side. Considering
the evidence of PW-2, this Court re-assesses the permanent
disability of the petitioner at 10% to the whole body. The
petitioner was aged 28 years old as of the date of the
accident, and the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier
of 17 to the age group of the petitioner. Accordingly, the
loss of future earning capacity of the petitioner is worked
out as follows:
Rs.5,500 x 12 x 17 x 10% = 1,12,200/-
18. Considering the entire evidence on record, this
Court reassesses the compensation under the following
heads:
Sl.No. HEADS AMOUNT
1. Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.29,250/-
3. Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/-
4. Special diet, conveyance Rs.10,000/-
and incidental charges
5. Loss of earning during Rs.16,500/-
laid up period
6. Loss of future earning Rs.1,12,200/-
capacity
Total Rs.2,27,950/-
Less: Compensation awarded by Rs.1,17,150/-
the Tribunal
Enhanced compensation Rs.1,10,800/-
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886
HC-KAR
19. Thus, in all, the claimant/petitioner is entitled to
a total compensation of Rs.2,27,950/- as against
Rs.1,17,150/- awarded by the tribunal i.e., to an enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,10,800/-. In view of the same, the
point regarding quantum is answered accordingly.
20. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) M.F.A.No.100873/2015 filed by the Insurance
Company is dismissed.
(ii) M.F.A.No.102575/2015 filed by the petitioner is
allowed in part.
(iii) The judgment and award dated 17.12.2014
passed in M.V.C.No.10/2011 by the learned
Addl. District and Sessions Judge, and M.A.C.T.,
Gadag is modified.
(iv) The petitioner is entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,10,800/- with interest at
6% p.a. from the date of the petition till
realization.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12886
HC-KAR
(v) Respondents No.1 and 2 i.e., the owner and
the insurance company are jointly and severally
liable to pay the compensation amount with
accrued interest to the petitioner.
(vi) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount with accrued interest
within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
(vii) The office is directed to transmit the records
and the amount in deposit to the Tribunal
concerned, forthwith.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
NAA
CT:ANB
