[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Laxmavva W/O Shiddappa Tadasanur vs R.B.Patil on 2 April, 2026

                                                    -1-
                                                           MFA No. 101309 OF 2014


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

                                   DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

                                                 PRESENT

                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

                            MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101309 OF 2014


                        BETWEEN:

                        SMT. LAXMAVVA W/O SIDDAPPA TADASANUR
                        AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE (SHEPHERD),
                        R/O: SIGANALLI,
                        TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD
                                                                        ...APPELLANT

                        (BY SRI P.G. CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE)

                        AND:

                        1 . R.B. PATIL
                            AGE: MAJOR,
                            OCC: BUSINESS AND TRANSPORT BUSINESS,
                            R/O. HULIKATTI,
                            TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM.

                        2 . THE MANAGER
                            THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                            SHRINATH COMPLEX, NILIGIN ROAD, HUBLI.
           Digitally
           signed by
                                                                     ...RESPONDENTS
           YASHAVANT



YASHAVANT
           NARAYANKAR
           Location:
           HIGH COURT
           OF
                        (BY SRI N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
                        NOTICE SERVED TO R1)
NARAYANKAR KARNATAKA
           DHARWAD
           BENCH
           Date:
           2026.04.02
           12:17:10
           +0530




                             THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
                        SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988, PRAYING TO
                        MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.06.2013 PASSED BY
                        COURT OF I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AND ADDL. MACT,
                        DHARWAD IN MVC NO.65/2008, AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS
                        CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION AND SHIFT THE LIABILITY ON THE
                        2ND RESPONDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, IN THE INTEREST OF
                        JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,.

                              THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON PRONOUNCEMENT AND THE
                        SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON
                        16.03.2026, THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  -2-
                                       MFA No. 101309 OF 2014



                        CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)

This is an appeal filed by the claimant in MVC No.65/2008

on the file of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM

and Additional MACT, Dharwad (hereinafter referred as 'the

Tribunal'), seeking for enhancement of the compensation and

praying to saddle the liability of satisfying the award on the

insurer of the offending vehicle.

2. The claimant maintained the petition in MVC

No.65/2008 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking

compensation of ₹2,50,000/- from the owner and insurer of the

Truck bearing No.KA-25-8024. The case of the claimant is that

on 17.04.2007 when she was returning to her native place in

Truck bearing No.KA-25-8024 at about 07.00 p.m., near

Tattihalli Canal of Devadigahalli on Itagi Road, its driver lost

control over the vehicle and caused accident and thereby, she

sustained grievous injuries.

3. Initially, the claimant had impleaded United India

Insurance Company Limited as Respondent No.2 on the ground

that they are the insurer of the offending vehicle. Later, the

claimant impleaded the New India Assurance Company Limited

MFA No. 101309 OF 2014

as Respondent No.3 on the ground that they are the insurer of

the said vehicle.

4. On service of the notice, Respondent No.3 appeared

before the Tribunal and contested the petition. On completion

of the pleading, the Tribunal framed issues, held enquiry in the

matter and decided the claim petition on merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the claimant proved having met with an

accident due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver

of the truck in question. The Tribunal further held that the

claimant was an unauthorized passenger in the offending

vehicle and as such, the insurer is not liable to pay any

compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the claim

petition in part and directed the owner of the truck to pay

compensation of Rs.52,300/- to the claimant together with

interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till its

deposit. Being aggrieved by the said award, the claimant has

come up with this appeal praying to award the compensation as

claimed in the claim petition as well as to fasten the liability on

the insurer of the offending vehicle of satisfying the award.

5. Sri P. G. Chikkanaragund, learned Counsel for the

Claimant vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has failed to

award just and reasonable compensation in the case by taking

MFA No. 101309 OF 2014

note of the injuries suffered by the claimant and the physical

disability on account of such injuries. He submitted that the

Tribunal has not taken note of the period of treatment of the

claimant as an inpatient as well as follow up treatment while

awarding the compensation. As such, he contended that the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side which

requires modification and enhancement as claimed in the claim

petition. He further submitted that the offending vehicle was

duly insured as on the date of the accident and therefore,

insurer is liable to satisfy the award.

6. Per contra, Sri N. R Kuppelur, learned Counsel for

Insurer supported the finding recorded by the Tribunal and in

particular, the conclusion of the Tribunal of absolving the

insurance company from its liability to pay the compensation

amount on the ground that the claimant was an unauthorized

passenger in a goods vehicle.

7. Though the notice of this appeal served on the

owner of the truck/Respondent No.1, he remained absent

before this Court.

8. Having heard the arguments addressed on both

sides, the following question arises for the consideration of this

MFA No. 101309 OF 2014

Court, namely, whether the claimant has made out valid

grounds to justify enhancement of the compensation and to

fasten the liability of satisfying the award on the insurer of the

offending vehicle.

9. It is the definite case of the claimant that on

17.04.2007 at about 07.00 p.m., when she was traveling in

truck bearing No.KA-25-8024 to go to her native place, near

Tattihalli Canal of Devadigahalli on Itagi Road, the said vehicle

turned turtle and thereby she sustained grievous injuries. The

Tribunal, based on the testimony of the claimant and the police

papers produced in support of such testimony held that the

driver of the truck was responsible for the accident. Though the

notice of the claim petition had been served on him, the owner

of the truck remained absent before the Tribunal and did not

contest the case. Thereby, there was no rebuttal to the

evidence placed on record by the claimant in support of her

case.

10. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was a goods

vehicle, and the claimant was travelling in the said vehicle to

go to her native place, in connection with attending a marriage.

It thereby stands clear that she was an unauthorized passenger

MFA No. 101309 OF 2014

in the offending vehicle. In view of the same, the Tribunal

rightly held that the insurer is not liable to satisfy the award.

11. The wound certificate marked at Ex.P3 goes to

show that the claimant had suffered fracture of right clavicle,

fracture of forearm colles' and a lacerated wound. Ex.P7 goes

to show that she underwent treatment at Nimra Hospital,

Gokak as an inpatient from 09.05.2007 to 20.05.2007. The

Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹20,000/- towards pain and

sufferings, ₹9,000/- under the head of loss of income during

laid up period and ₹3,000/- under incidental expenses. Taking

into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the

claimant and probable period of treatment including follow up

treatment, this Court holds that the compensation awarded by

the Tribunal on these heads is on lower side. Hence, it is held

that the claimant is entitled for a sum of ₹40,000/- under the

head of pain and sufferings, a sum of ₹15,000/- under the head

of loss of income during laid up period and a sum of ₹10,000/-

under incidental charges.

12. The Tribunal, based on the document produced at

Ex.P8 awarded a sum of ₹10,300/- under the medical

expenses. Ex.P9 goes to show that the claimant has spent

another sum of ₹4,960/- during further treatment. The

MFA No. 101309 OF 2014

Tribunal disallowed the amount spent under Ex.P9 with an

observation that it is written on a prescription paper. No doubt,

Ex.P9 is a document, written on a prescription paper. In the

considered view of this Court the said aspect alone cannot be a

ground to reject the claim of the claimant. The materials on

record do not create any suspicion regarding its genuineness.

As such, it is held that the claimant is entitled for compensation

of ₹15,260/- under the head of medical expenses.

13. The Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹10,000/- under the

head of loss of amenities. The claimant has not adduced any

evidence before the Tribunal to show that she is suffering from

any permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained in

the accident. As such, this Court does not find any reason to

modify the compensation awarded under this head. For the

foregoing reasons, point for consideration is answered partly in

the affirmative.

14. For the reasons stated above, this Court holds that

the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of ₹90,260/- in

place of ₹52,300/- awarded by the Tribunal under the following

heads:

MFA No. 101309 OF 2014

Sl.No. Heads Amount ( in ₹)

1. Pain and sufferings 40,000.00

2. Medical expenses 15,260.00

3. Incidental expenses 10,000.00

4. Loss of income during laid-up 15,000.00 period

5. Loss of amenities 10,000.00

Total : 90,260.00

15. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

following:

ORDER

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

              ii.      The   Claimant     is   entitled   for   total

                       compensation of ₹90,260/- in place of

                       ₹52,300/- awarded by the Tribunal.


              iii.     The enhanced compensation amount shall

                       carry interest at the rate of 8% per

                       annum from the date of petition till

                       realization.


              iv.      The owner/Respondent No.1 shall deposit

                       the   enhanced     compensation      amount

                                      MFA No. 101309 OF 2014