Maruti Rama Naik vs Vijaya Devappa Hanumgond
2026 Latest Caselaw 2417 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Maruti Rama Naik vs Vijaya Devappa Hanumgond on 17 March, 2026

Author: Ravi V.Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani

                                                        -1-
                                                                      NC: 2026:KHC-D:4295
                                                                  MFA No. 102772 of 2016


                            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.102772 OF 2016 (MV-I)

                            BETWEEN:

                            MARUTI RAMA NAIK,
                            AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: MILK VENDING AND
                            AGENT IN SAMURDHA FOODS LTD.,
                            R/O: TARIHAL, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.
                                                                               ... APPELLANT
                            (BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE)


                            AND:

                            1.    VIJAYA DEVAPPA HANUMGOND,
                                  AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
                                  R/O: NAVI GALLIL, DHAMANE,
                                  TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.

                            2.  REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER,
                                IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
CHANDRASHEKAR
                                BRANCH OFFICE, SHIKSHAK VISHWASATH
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI

Digitally signed by
                                MANDAL, SHIKSHAK BHAVAN,
                                OPPOSITE SANMAN PETROL PUMP,
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad bench
Date: 2026.03.23 10:02:33
+0000


                                COLLEGE ROAD, BELAGAVI.
                                                                     ... RESPONDENTS
                            (BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADV. FOR R2;
                                NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)

                                   THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
                            VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
                            AWARD PASSED BY THE IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
                            AND      MEMBER   IV   ADDITIONAL     M.A.C.T.,   BELAGAVI   IN
                                    -2-
                                               NC: 2026:KHC-D:4295
                                          MFA No. 102772 of 2016


    HC-KAR


M.V.C.NO.1092/2014 DATED 17.03.2015 AS UNDER ALLOW
THIS APPEAL AND ENHANCE AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION
AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED BEFORE THE
TRIBUNAL BY THE APPELLANT AND ETC.,


           THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

                            ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 17.03.2015 passed

by III Additional District Judge and Member IV Additional MACT,

Belagavi1 in MVC no.1092/2014, this appeal is filed.

2. Sri Ashok A. Naik, learned counsel for appellant

submits that appeal was by claimant for enhancement of

compensation. It was submitted that 16.08.2013 at about 10.30

a.m., when claimant was waiting for bus to proceed towards

Belagavi, rider of motorcycle bearing no.KA-22/F-9100 rode it in

rash and negligent manner and dashed against claimant and

caused accident. Due to same, claimant sustained grievous

injuries and admitted to Gopal Jinagouda Bharatesh Hospital.

Despite treatment, he did not recover fully and sustained loss of

For short, 'Tribunal'

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4295

HC-KAR

earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition against owner

and Insurer of motorcycle under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988.

3. On issuance of notice, owner did not appear and was

placed ex-parte. Only Insurer opposed claim petition by filing

objections.

4. Based on pleadings Tribunal framed issues and

recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself and Dr.SR Angadi

as PW1 and PW2 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P21.

Insurer did not lead oral evidence but got marked copy of

insurance policy as Ex.R1.

5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident occurred due

to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by its rider,

motorcycle was insured with Insurer and claimant was entitled

for compensation of Rs.1,56,000/- with interest at 8% per

annum from Insurer. Dissatisfied with quantum, claimant was in

appeal.

6. It was submitted, though claimant had stated that he

was aged 38 years and earned Rs.15,000/- as Milk Vendor and

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4295

HC-KAR

Agent of Samrudhi Foods Ltd., Tribunal erroneously considered it

at Rs.6,000/- per month. Though claimant sustained fracture of

right patella assessed by PW2 to have resulted in 35% disability

in Ex.P18-disability certificate, Tribunal did not award

compensation towards future loss of income. Even compensation

awarded towards pain and suffering at Rs.50,000/-, Rs.15,000/-

towards loss of income during laid-up period and Rs.15,000/-

each towards food and other incidental expenses and towards

loss of amenities respectively were lower and sought

enhancement.

7. On other hand, Sri RR Mane, learned counsel for

respondent-Insurer submitted, fracture of patella would not

result in any disability or loss of earning capacity and Tribunal

awarded compensation under various heads as entitled with no

scope for enhancement.

8. Heard learned counsel for parties, perused impugned

judgment and award.

9. From above, point that would arise for consideration

is: