Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1167
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
Shri. Mehaboob S/O Babusab Multani – Appellant
Versus
Shri. Krishna S/O Yallappa Bajantri - Respondent
MFA No. 101144 of 2014
Decided On : 11-09-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI. SANJAY S KATAGERI
For the Respondent: SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR
In assessing compensation for injuries, courts must prioritize medical evidence and cannot presume contributory negligence without adequate proof.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 173(1) and 166 - Appeal regarding compensation for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident - Claim petition partially allowed with initial compensation of Rs.1,49,003/- modified to Rs.3,54,003/- due to assessment of permanent disability not originally considered - Liability of the truck driver established as negligent, with no evidence of contributory negligence from the Scorpio's driver. (Paras 1, 11, 16, 18)
(B) Compensation - Assessment of bodily injuries and permanent disability - Importance of medical evidence in re-evaluating damages - Permanent disability reassessed at 10%, leading to increased compensation. (Paras 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sustained grievous injuries in a collision between a truck and a Scorpio car while traveling. The initial Tribunal award was deemed insufficient based on medical evidence.
Findings of Court:
Enhanced compensation awarded after re-evaluating evidence surrounding disability and assessing the driver’s liability.
Issues: Primary concerns included the negligence of the drivers and the appropriate amount of compensation for physical injuries sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to assess all evidence, particularly medical records, in determining fair compensation and established no contributory negligence from the Scorpio driver.
Result: Appeal is partially allowed, enhancing the compensation to Rs.3,54,003/- with interest.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the petitioner, challenging the judgment and award dated 31.12.2013 passed in MVC No.1356/2011 by the MACT- I and Principal District Judge, Belgaum.
2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
3. The petitioner in MVC No.1356/2011 was traveling along with one Sangappa in a Scorpio Car bearing Registration No.KA-04/MD-8451, on 17.01.2011 from Belgaum towards Gokak. When the said Scorpio reached near the spot of accident, a truck bearing registration No. KA-24/9595 came from opposite direction and collided with the Scorpio Car. As a result, the petitioner and Sangappa sustained grievous injuries. Hence, Sangappa and the petitioner filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the M.V Act, seeking for compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident.
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., the owner and the driver of the Truck in question, filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the Scorpio car and not on the part of the driver of the Truck. It is contended that driver of the Truck in question was possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the driver and the owner of the Truck in question.
5. Insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that the Scorpio car is a commercial vehicle and the passengers are not allowed to travel in the said vehicle and the policy does not cover the passengers and no additional premium was paid by the owner of the Scorpio. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the claim petition.
6. The Tribunal, clubbed both claim petitions and framed the separate issues.
7. The petitioner in MVC No.1356/2011 was examined as PW.2 and examined a doctor as PW.3 and marked 76 documents as Exs.P1 to P76. The officer of the Insurance Company was examined as RW.1 and marked 2 documents as Exs.R1 to R2. The tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.1,49,003/- to the petitioner, against respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., the owner and the driver of the Truck in question and dismissed the claim petition against the owner and Insurance Company of the Scorpio.
8. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation in MVC No.1356/2011, and also dismissal of the claim petition against the owner and the insurance company of the Scorpio vehicle, filed this Appeal.
9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was an inmate in the Scorpio and he is a third party. He is entitled to claim compensation against the Insurance Company of the Scorpio. He submits that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim petition against the owner and the Insurance Company of the Scorpio Car. He also submits that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. To prove the disability, the petitioner had examined a doctor as PW.3. He has opined that the petitioner has suffered comminuted fracture of neck, humerus right shoulder, fracture to the right side ribs, multiple injuries over right shoulder, grievous injury to right arm, and grievous injury to all over the body. He has opined that permanent physical disability of 50% in the right shoulder joint due to the fracture of upper end and in the neck of the right humerus bone and in the right shoulder joint and in the 2nd and 3rd ribs in the right side of the chest.
11. The Tribunal without considering the wound certificate issued by PW.3, assessed the disability. The petitioner has examined a
