[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Hoovappa S/O Basappa Hosakur vs Srishail S/O Kallappa Katti on 17 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4217
MFA No. 102337 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102337 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI HOOVAPPA S/O BASAPPA HOSAKUR,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL,
R/O: YAKKERI VILLAGE, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST:
BELGAUM.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRISHAIL S/O KALLAPPA KATTI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: SHINDOGI VILLAGE,
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
ISSUING BRANCH OFFICE, APMC YARD, TAL: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM, THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR PRABHU BUILDING
PB NO.175, RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR ...RESPONDENTS
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High (BY SRI RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
Dharwad
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN MVC NO.943/2012 DATED 02.12.2013
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT
SAUNDATTI AT SAUNDATTI UNDER ALL PERMISSIBLE HEADS.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4217
MFA No. 102337 of 2014
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 27.12.2013 passed
by Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Saundatti,
('Tribunal' for short) in MVC no.943/2012, this appeal is filed.
2. Smt.Shaila Bellikattil learned counsel for appellant
submitted that appeal was by claimant. It was stated, on
08.11.2011, claimant was riding a moped bearing no.KA-24/E-
659 along with two pillion riders on Munavalli-Hoolikatti road. At
about 07.00 p.m., rider of motorcycle no.KA-24/L-2801 rode it in
a rash and negligent manner and dashed against moped causing
accident. In said accident, claimant and pillion riders suffered
injuries and sustained loss of earning capacity. Therefore they
filed separate claim petitions under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 ('MV Act' for short) against owner and insurer of
motorcycle. They were clubbed together.
3. On appearance, only insurer filed objections opposing
claim petition on all counts. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed
issues and recorded evidence.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4217
HC-KAR
4. Claimants examined themselves and Dr.RB Patagundi
as PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P59. Respondent
examined its official as RW1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R3.
5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred
due to contributory negligence of riders of moped and motorcycle
apportioned at 50% each and held claimant in MVC no.943/2012
entitled for 50% of total compensation of Rs.1,42,700/-.
Dissatisfied with quantum as well as finding on negligence,
appeal is filed. It was submitted, as noted by Tribunal accident
had occurred on 18 feet wide road running East-West at 1 feet
from southern edge of road. Tribunal noted that accident had
occurred due to negligence of rider of insured motorcycle.
However, only on ground that claimant rider of moped was not
having driving licence had apportioned negligence to extent of
50% which was not justified. On quantum it was submitted,
claimant was 30 years of age, doing limestone business and
earning Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. Though he
sustained fractures of tibia and fibula assessed by PW4-doctor to
have resulted in 50% disability to affected limb, Tribunal
considered loss of earning capacity at only 10% and awarded
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4217
HC-KAR
inadequate compensation. It was submitted, even compensation
awarded towards 'pain and suffering', 'medical and incidental
expenses', 'loss of income during laid up period' were
inadequate. It was submitted, Tribunal had not awarded any
compensation towards 'loss of amenities'. On said grounds
sought for allowing appeal.
6. On other hand, Sri Ravindra R. Mane, learned
counsel for respondent-insurer opposed appeal. It was
submitted, Tribunal had considered that claimant, rider of moped
was riding it with two pillion riders without possessing driving
licence at time of accident. Therefore, apportionment of
negligence was justified. It was submitted, compensation
awarded under various heads by Tribunal was just and proper
and no enhancement is called for. On said grounds sought for
dismissal of appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award.
8. From above, and since only claimant is in appeal
challenging finding of Tribunal on negligence as well as for
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4217
HC-KAR
enhancement of compensation, points that would arise for
consideration are:
i. Whether apportionment of negligence at 50%
on claimant by Tribunal called for modification?
ii. Whether claimant was entitled for enhancement
of compensation as sought?
9. Point no.1 : As noted by Tribunal, accident occurred
on a road running East-West with accident spot at 1 feet from
southern edge on 18 feet wide road. Tribunal also observed,
rider of motorcycle/insured vehicle had caused accident.
However, on ground that rider of moped (claimant) was riding
with two pillion riders, without driving licence, it apportioned
negligence to extent of 50%. Riding of motorcycle with two
pillion riders, though may constitute offence attracting fine
cannot without specific material lead to an inference of
contributory cause for accident. Likewise, in case of driving
licence. When accident occurred at edge of road and rider of
insured vehicle was found to have gone on extreme wrong side,
apportionment of negligence at 50% each would not be justified.
At best, some negligence could be apportioned at 10% against
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4217
HC-KAR
rider of moped would appear reasonable. Point no.1 is answered
accordingly.
10. Point no.2 : Though claimant stated that he was
doing limestone business and earning Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/-,
same was not substantiated. Therefore, notional income for year
2011 at Rs.6,000/- ought to have been considered. PW4 had
examined claimant and issued Ex.P34-disability certificate
assessed 50% disability to affected limb. Same is taken as 10%
towards loss of earning capacity. It is seen that there is no
discussion about severity of restriction of movement of affected
limb. Moreover, taking note of occupation of claimant as
limestone 'business', assessment of functional disability at 10%
by Tribunal would appear justified. Considering his age as 30
years, multiplier applicable would be 17%. Thus future loss of
income would be as follows:
Rs.6,000/- X 10% X 12 X 17 = 1,22,400/-.
11. Claimant sustained fracture of tibia and fibula, which
would be fracture to a structural bone. Award of Rs.30,000/-
towards 'pain and suffering' would appear inadequate and stands
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4217
HC-KAR
enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. Claimant produced medical bills for
Rs.9,189/-. It is stated that he underwent inpatient treatment for
a period of 17 days. Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,600/- each
towards 'attendant charges and diet' etc. Considering period of
inpatient treatment as well as medical bills produced, it is found
appropriate to enhance compensation to Rs.25,000/- towards
'Medical expenses', 'attendant and other incidental charges'.
Normally fractures take about 3 months to heal. Considering said
period as layoff, claimant is awarded Rs.18,000/- towards 'loss
of income during laid up period'. Tribunal has not awarded
compensation towards 'loss of amenities'. Taking note of
disability, it is found appropriate to award a sum of Rs.25,000/-
towards same. Thus, total compensation would be
Rs.2,30,400/-. Point no.2 is answered partly in affirmative as
above. Consequently following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part.
ii. Judgment and award dated 27.12.2013 passed by
Tribunal in MVC no.943/2012 is modified.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4217
HC-KAR
iii. Apportionment of contributory negligence against
claimant is reduced to 10%.
iv. It is clarified that claimant would be entitled for
90% of total compensation re-assessed at
Rs.2,30,400/- with interest at 6% per annum
from date of claim petition till deposit excluding
period of 161 days as per order dated 22.11.2017
passed in this appeal.
v. Insurer is directed to deposit 90% of
compensation before Tribunal within a period of 6
weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of
this order.
vi. On deposit, same is ordered to be released in
favour of claimant.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
EM, CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 11
