[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shri Dundappa Alias Dundesh S/O Suresh ... vs Shri Prabhu Alias Parappa S/O Mallappa ... on 7 March, 2026

                                                  -1-
                                                                 NC: 2026:KHC-D:3662
                                                          MFA No. 100389 of 2022


                       HC-KAR



                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                              DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                                             BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
                       MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100389 OF 2022 (MV-I)

                      BETWEEN:
                      1.   SHRI DUNDAPPA @ DUNDESH S/O SURESH HATTI
                           AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. MECHANICAL WORK,
                           R/O. ARABHAVIMATH, TQ. GOKAK,
                           DIST. BELAGAVI- 593107.

                                                                          ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. SANTOSH S HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE)
                      AND:

                      1.   SHRI PRABHU @ PARAPPA S/O MALLAPPA RADRATTI
                           AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. MECHANICAL WORK,
                           R/O. SHIVAPUR, TQ. GOKAK,
                           DIST. BELAGAVI 593107.

                      2.   SHRI. ANAND S/O BASAPPA KARGANVI
                           AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
                           R/O. ARABHAVIMATH, TQ. GOKAK,
                           DIST. BELAGAVI 593107.

                      3.   TEH UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD,
                           BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B               MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI 593107.
SHELAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                                                               ...RESPONDENTS
KARNATAKA
                      (BY SRI. PREETI SHASHANK, ADV FOR R3;
                       NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

                           THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
                      MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE XII ADDL.
                      DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT GOKAK, IN MVC
                      NO.179/2019 DATED 18.09.2021 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION
                      AS PRAYED FOR IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY ALLOWING THEIS
                      APPEAL.

                           THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
                      JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                   -2-
                                                 NC: 2026:KHC-D:3662
                                          MFA No. 100389 of 2022


HC-KAR



                         ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

The claimant dissatisfied with the quantum of

compensation filed this appeal challenging the judgment

and award dated 18.09.2021 passed in MVC No. 179 of

2019 by the learned XII Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Gokak ( for short, 'the

Tribunal')

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition

are as follows:

3. On 31.12.2018, the claimant as the pillion rider

was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing Reg No. KA-49 S-

9579. The rider of the motorcycle ridden the same in rash

and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle coming

from the opposite direction. As a result, the claimant

sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the claimant filed a

claim petition seeking compensation on account of the

injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.

Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3662

HC-KAR

4. Though, the owner and the driver of the

motorcycle appeared before the tribunal, they did not file

their statement of objections.

5. The insurance company filed a statement of

objections denying the averments made in the claim

petition. It is contended that the rider of the motorcycle did

not posses a valid and effective driving license as of the

date of the accident and also contended that there is a

delay in registering the case. Accordingly, on these

grounds, prays to dismiss the petition.

6. The tribunal, based on the rival pleadings of the

parties, framed the relevant issues.

7. The claimant, to substantiate his claim, examined

himself as PW1, examined the doctor as PW2 and marked

26 documents as Ex.P1 to EX.P26. The Insurance Company

did not lead any oral evidence. However, got marked a

document as Ex.R.1 with consent.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3662

HC-KAR

8. The tribunal after recording the evidence of the

parties and after appreciating the verbal and documentary

evidence placed on record, allowed the claim petition in part

vide judgment and award dated 18.09.2021 and awarded a

compensation of Rs. 70,000/- to the claimant with interest

at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition,

till its realisation.

9. The claimant being dissatisfied with the quantum

of compensation filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.

10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the claimant and the learned counsel for the Insurance

Company.

11. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that

the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower

side. He submits that though the doctor has assessed the

disability at 15%, but the tribunal did not consider the

disability. He submits that the compensation awarded by

the tribunal on the other heads is also on the lower side.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3662

HC-KAR

Accordingly, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal

by enhancing the amount of compensation.

12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance

Company submits that the amount of compensation

awarded by the tribunal is just and proper and the same do

not require interference at the hands of this court and

accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal.

13. Perused the records and considered the

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

14. The point that would arise for consideration is

regarding the quantum of compensation.

15. It is undisputed that the claimant met with an

accident on 31.12.2018, and sustained grievous injuries.

The accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent

riding of the rider of the motorcycle. The claimant to prove

that the accident had occurred due to the rash and

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3662

HC-KAR

negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle, has produced

a charge sheet marked as Ex.P.8.

16. The tribunal was justified in answering Issue No.

1 by recording a finding that the accident had occurred due

to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the

motorcycle.

Regarding the quantum of compensation

17. It is undisputed that the claimant was aged

about 19 years as of the date of the accident and the

accident is of 2018. The claimant contended that the

claimant used to do mechanical works and used to earn Rs.

15,000/- per month. To substantiate his contention, he has

not produced any income proof. In the absence of the

income proof the notional income has to be assessed as per

the schedule issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services

Authority. As per the schedule issued by the KSLSA, this

court assesses the notional income at Rs. 11,750/-. The

multiplier applicable to the age of the claimant is '18' as per

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3662

HC-KAR

the proposition of law laid down in the case of SARLA

VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS V. DELHI TRANSPORT

CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 6

SCC 121.

18. The tribunal has not considered the disability

assessed by the doctor at 15%. This court, considering the

material on record, assesses the disability of the claimant at

10%. In the light of the above, this court reassesses the

compensation as follows:

  Sl.              Particulars                 Amount of
  No.                                        compensation
                                            awarded by this
                                                 court
                                              (In Rupees)
 1       Loss of future income                      2,53,800
         (11,750 x 12 x 18 x 10%)
 2       Pain and suffering                           15,000
 3       Medical expenses                             37,291
 4       Food and nourishment                         10,000
 5       Loss of amenities                            25,000
 6       Loss of income during laid-up                23,500
         period
         (11,750 x 2)
                                    Total          3,64,591
         Compensation awarded by the                 70,000
                                 Tribunal
            Compensation enhanced by               2,94,591
                               this Court

                                             NC: 2026:KHC-D:3662



HC-KAR




     19.    Thus,    the   claimant    is   entitled   to   a   total

compensation of Rs.3,64,591/- as against Rs.70,000/-,

awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the claimant is entitled

to an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,94,591/-. For the

foregoing, the point regarding the quantum is answered

accordingly.

20. In view of the discussion, I proceed to pass the

following order:

ORDER

i) The Appeal is allowed in part.

ii) The impugned judgment and award passed

by the Tribunal is hereby modified.

iii) The claimant is entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.3,64,591/- as against

Rs.70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus,

the claimant is entitled to an enhanced

compensation of Rs.2,94,591/- with interest

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3662

HC-KAR

at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of

the petition till its realisation.

iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the enhanced compensation amount with

accrued interest within 8 weeks from the date

of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.