1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

M.F.A. No. 200712/2017 (MV)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

S.S.TEMPLE BACKSIDE

BIJAPUR-586 101,

THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER

AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, KALABURAGI.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1 .

MUDDASSAR

S/O FAYAZ AHMED APAGHAN

AGE 27 YEARS,

OCC: STUDENT & SERVING IN

RAJ TELEVISIONS

R/O JORAPUR PETH,

BEHIND OLD CIVIL HOSPITAL,

BIJAPUR-586 101.

2 .

MR. HUSSAINBASHA

S/O ABDUL REHAMAN GODYAL

R/O AMBARKHANA, J.M.ROAD

GACHINAMAHAL, BIJAPUR-586 101.

..RESPONDENTS

(RESPONDENTS ARE SERVED)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, BY THE

ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT, PRAYING THAT THIS HON BLE

COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO, CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET

2

ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.01.2017 PASSED

BY THE MEMBER, MACT NO.XIII, VIJAYAPURA IN MVC

NO.1663/2013 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the

liability imposed upon it to pay compensation awarded by

the MACT, Vijaypura (henceforth referred to as 'Tribunal' ,

for short) in terms of the judgment and award dated

30.01.2017 in M.V.C. No.1663/2013.

2.

The records disclose that the claimant was

returning to his house on a motor cycle on 04.07.2013. At

about 10 p.m., an autorickshaw bearing reg. No.KA-28/A-

9321 (henceforth referred to as 'offending vehicle '), being

driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed against the

motor cycle. As a result, the claimant suffered injuries and

was shifted to District Hospital, Bijapur, where he was

admitted

as

an

inpatient

between

04.07.2013

to

09.07.2013 and thereafter at a Private Hospital at Miraj.

The claimant claimed that he had incurred expenses of

`1,50,000/-

towards

his

treatment.

The

claimant

3

contended that he was pursuing higher studies and was

also part time television actor and was earning `6,000/- to

`7,000/- per month. He, therefore, filed a claim petition

under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming

compensation of `14,00,000/- from the owner and the

insurer of the offending vehicle.

3.

The owner of the offending vehicle did not

contest the claim petition . The insurer admitted that the

offending vehicle was insured by it. However, it denied

that the driver of the offending vehicle was solely

responsible for the accident. Curiously, it claimed that the

driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the driving

licence . It was also contended that the owner of the

offending vehicle did not possess a Fitness Certificate as it

had expired on 01.05.2013.

4.

Based on these rival contentions, the case was

set down for trial. The claimant was examined as PW1 and

examined Doctor as PW2 and they marked documents as

Ex.P1 to P18. The insurer examined its officer as RW1 and

marked Exs.R1to R3.

4

5.

Based on the oral and documentary evidence,

the Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and

negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle.

Having regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant

and the consequent disability, the Tribunal held that the

claimant had suffered disability to the extent of 12% and

the notional income of the claimant was considered at a

sum

of

`9,500/-

per

month

and

the

following

compensation was awarded :

Sl.

No.

Different heads

Compensation

Amount

1

Pain and suffering

`

81,000/-

2

Spl. Diet, conveyance and

attendant charges

`

42,000/-

3

Loss of income during laid-up

period and rest for 2 months

`

19,000/-

4

Loss

of

amenities

and

unhappiness in life

`

25,000/-

5

Medical expenses

`

1,14,222/-

Total

`

2,81,222/-

6.

The Tribunal directed the owner and the

insurer of the offending ve