Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25603
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
Ashok S. Kinagi, J
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER – Appellant
Versus
SRI. SHIVAPUTRAPPA S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA HARIHAR – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101703 OF 2021 (MV-I)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M Y Katagi
For the Respondents:
The court affirmed that in motor accident claims, notional income is applicable when actual income is unproven, and disability assessments provided by the treating doctor are valid grounds for determining the compensation amount.
Headnote:(A) Motor Accident Claims - Quantum of Compensation - Notional Income - In the absence of concrete income proof, the adoption of notional income as per the State Legal Services Authority schedule is justified. (Para 17)
(B) Disability Assessment - Evidence of Treated Doctor - Where a treating doctor certifies a specific limb disability, the tribunal's assessment of overall functional disability based on such medical evidence is just and proper. (Para 18, 19)
Issues: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, specifically regarding the assessment of disability and notional income, was just and proper.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the accident and the initial award by the tribunal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. challenges by the insurance company regarding disability assessment and interest. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. confirmation of rash and negligent driving based on the charge sheet. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. application of notional income and the sarla verma multiplier. (Para 17) |
| 5. validation of disability percentage based on treated doctor's evidence. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the tribunal's award. (Para 21) |
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1039/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, RANEBENNUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.5,48,359/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS PAYMENT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
1. The Insurance Company filed this Appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 22.04.2021 passed in MVC No. 1039 of 2017 by the learned 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur.
2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
3. On 12.06.2017, at about 15:15 hours the claimant was returning to his native after offering pooja at Basavanna temple at Nandigudi as a pillion rider in the motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA.27/EC-8422 and when the motorcycle came near the spot of accident, one Trax bearing Reg No. KA-17/C-7095 came from opposite side in the rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of which, the claimant sustained the grievous injuries and filed a claim petition under section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.
4. The owner of the offending vehicle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the offending vehicle was insured with insurance company as of the date of the accident and hence, the company would be liable in case of any liability. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition.
5. The insurance company filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective licence as of the date of the accident and there is violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company.
6. The tribunal, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.
7. The claimant to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1, examined the doctor as PW2 and marked 119 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. In rebuttal, the owner of the offending vehicle was examined as RW1 and marked 4 documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.
8. The tribunal, after recording the evidence of the parties, and after appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 22.04.2021 and awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,48,359/- to the claimant along with the interest at the rate of 7% p.a from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment and held that the respondent No. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest.
9. The insurance company aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the tribunal, preferred this miscellaneous first appeal.
10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurance company.
11. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the doctor examined by the claimant is a non treated
