Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22358 OF 2013 (MV-) BETWEEN:
1. CHI. ASIF @ MOHAMMAD ASHIF
S/O SAIDUSAB NADAF, AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE MINOR BY GUARDIAN HIS MOTHER KHAJABI, W/O SAIDUSAB NADAF, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: BAGALKOT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADV) AND:
1. YELLAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA KURI, AGE: 43 MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF VECHILE, R/O: SULIKERI, TQ: BADAMI.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MELIGERI COMPLEX, BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST Digitally signed by THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:15-02-2013 PASSED IN MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.09 MVC.NO.564/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT.NO.III, 12:05:39 +0530 BAGALKOT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI -2-
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
1. This Appeal is filed by the petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded vide Judgment and award dated 15.02.2013 passed in MVC No.564/2010 by the learned Member M.A.C.T.No.III, Bagalkot (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 03.12.2009, the minor petitioner was riding a
bicycle. At that time, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-29/S-410 ridden by its rider, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner’s bicycle. As a result, the minor petitioner sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to the Hospital. The parents of the petitioner spent a huge amount towards a medical and
-3- other expenses. The minor petitioner, through his natural guardian, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.
4. A Notice was served on the owner of the vehicle. Despite the service of notice, the owner remained absent and was placed ex-parte.
5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of
objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving license 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.
6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.
7. The petitioner’s father was examined as PW-1, two other witnesses were examined as PW-2 and PW-3, and -4-
marked 11 documents as Ex.P1 to P11. Conversely, on behalf of the Insurance Company, no oral evidence has been adduced. A copy of the Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.P1 with consent of the parties.
8. The Tribunal, after assessing verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part
vide judgment dated 15.02.2013 and held that the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.73,550/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realisation, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the said amount.
9. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.
10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and suffered a -5-
permanent disability to the extent of 38% as per the Doctors i.e. PW-2 and PW-3. The Tribunal has taken only 5%, and he submits that the permanent disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he submits that the disability may be re-assessed by this Court ,and accordingly, prays to allow the appeal.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company submits that the Doctors who have examined the petitioner are not the treated Doctors and they have only issued a disability certificate. The Tribunal was justified in assessing the permanent disability at 5% and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference. Hence, he 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. -6-
15. There is no dispute that the minor petitioner met
with an accident, sustained grievous injuries, and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the offending motorcycle. A charge sheet at Ex. P-4 was filed against the rider of the motorcycle.
16. The petitioner, to prove that he suffered a permanent disability, examined the Doctors as PW-2 and
PW-3. They examined the petitioner clinically and radiologically and opined that the petitioner had sustained a permanent disability to the extent of 38%. However, the Tribunal has taken the disability only 5%, which is on lower side. Though, the PW-2 and PW-3 are not the treated Doctors, they have issued the disability certificate. The Tribunal should have taken at least 1/3rd of the disability assessed by the doctors. The disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. This Court, considering the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, and the medical records, is of the opinion that the permanent disability is required to be reassessed. This Court reassesses the disability at 13%. In
-7- view of the propositions laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Another1, it is
held that:
“12. Though it is difficulty to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and up to 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs; up to 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; up to 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakhs. For permanent disability up to 10%, it should be Rs.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take a different yardstick.”
17. In the present case, this Court reassessed the disability at 13%. The petitioner was hospitalized for 73 days, which caused inconvenience, and loss of earning to the parents.
(2014) 14 SCC 396 -8-
18. Considering the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 and the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Court reassess the compensation in following manner: Heads Compensation Amount
Pain and suffering already undergone Rs.1,50,000/- and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship, etc., Discomfort, inconvenience and loss of Rs.40,000/- earnings to the parents during the period of hospitalization Total Rs.1,90,000/-
19. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- as against Rs.73,550/-.
20. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The Judgment and award dated 15.02.2013 passed in MVC No.564/2010 by the learned Member M.A.C.T.No.III, Bagalkot, is modified. -9-
(iii) The petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- as against Rs.73,550/-.
(iv) Thus, the petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,16,450/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization of the amount.
(v) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
(vi) The office is directed to transmit the trial Court records, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RHR/- CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3