Dismissed¶50

The Divisional Manager v. Umesh S/O Manohar Tippankar

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2025MFA/201504/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Oriental Insurance MFA (MV-I) under S.173(1) MV Act against MACT Kalaburagi award of Rs.2,31,700 for 25.02.2019 motorcycle collision (fracture left patella, Crime No.58/2019 Ferahatabad PS); High Court upheld finding of no contributory negligence (chargesheet against other rider) and reliance on non-treating doctor PW2's 30% disability taken as 10% functional disability; appeal dismissed 07.04.2025, C M Joshi J., Kalaburagi Bench.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's finding that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner rests on the evidence on record (including the chargesheet against the rider of the other vehicle) and cannot be interfered with merely because the petitioner's vehicle was also involved; the petitioner's negligence was not established. ¶46

The Divisional Manager Vs Umesh S/O Manohar Tippankar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner (claimant) in the accident, warranting reduction of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. +1 more

¶40

Court's answer

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal's assessment of 10% functional disability (one-third of the 30% disability to the left lower limb assessed by PW2) for the petitioner, a coolie aged 40, is based on the evidence available on record.

¶47

Key takeaways

Evidence of a doctor who assessed the disability but did not treat the injured cannot be discarded merely for that reason; it must, however, be appreciated with caution, the testimony of a treating doctor standing on a higher footing than that of a non-treating doctor.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Misc. First Appeal (MV-I) under S.173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 01.02.2023 of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Kalaburagi in MVC No.166/2020, which awarded Rs.2,31,700/- to Umesh s/o Manohar Tippankar for injuries (fracture of left patella; inpatient 25.02.2019 to 21.03.2019) suffered in a 25.02.2019 motorcycle collision on the Kalaburagi-Afzalpur road. The insurer argued (i) contributory negligence by the claimant since both vehicles collided, and (ii) excessiveness of quantum because PW2, who assessed 30% disability to the left lower limb, was not a treating doctor. The High Court (C M Joshi J.) held that the chargesheet against the rider of the other vehicle showed no contributory negligence by the claimant and the Tribunal's finding could not be disturbed merely because the claimant's vehicle was also involved; that evidence of a non-treating doctor cannot be discarded merely on that account, though it must be appreciated with caution; and that the Tribunal's 10% functional disability assessment for a 40-year-old coolie was evidence-based. Appeal dismissed at the stage of orders; amount in deposit ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal. Decided 07.04.2025.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2209 MFA No. 201504 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶7

MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201504 OF 2023 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., OPP: MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA, MAIN ROAD, KALBURGI-585 102.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

UMESH S/O MANOHAR TIPPANKAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O PLOT NO. 45, SHAIK ROZA ROAD, NEAR BANASHANKARI SCHOOL, MAHADEV NAGAR, KALABURGI-585 105.

¶14

RAHUL S/O MAHADEV, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS AND OWNER OF BAJAJ PLATINA MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO. KA-32/ES-8420, CHASIS NO. MD2A76AY9JWA30195, ENGINE NO. PFYWJA04013, R/O TRITANDA SEVA NAGAR, DEVER TEGANOOR, TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURGI-585 105.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. SANJEEV PATIL, ADV. FOR R1; V/O DATED 07.04.2025, THE NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-K:2209 MFA No. 201504 of 2023

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.02.2023 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT KALABURAGI IN MVC NO.166/2020 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶25

Being aggrieved by the quantum of the

¶26

compensation awarded in MVC No.166/2020 by the learned I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Kalaburagi, the respondent No.2-insurance company is before this Court seeking reduction of the compensation on account of contributory negligence.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2209 MFA No. 201504 of 2023

¶28

The factual matrix of the case is that on that

¶29

on 25.02.2019, the petitioner was the rider of motorcycle bearing No.K-32/EQ-8649 and while he was going towards Awaralli village on Kalaburagi-Afzalpur road, the motorcycle owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 came from the opposite direction and dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner resulting in an accident where the petitioner sustained injuries. He was admitted to Government Hospital, Kalaburagi and took treatment as inpatient from 25.02.2019 to 21.03.2019. A case was registered by Ferahatabad P.S. in Crime No.58/2019 and chargesheet was filed against the rider of the motorcycle owned by respondent No.1. The petitioner claimed adequate compensation for the injuries sustained by him.

¶30

Petition was opposed by the respondent No.2 on the ground that there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner and that the terms and conditions of the policy were where violated. It was also

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2209 MFA No. 201504 of 2023

¶32

contended that they there is a delay of two months 16 days in lodging the complaint and the rider of the offending motorcycle was not having a valid driving licence. Alleging that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, the insurance company sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶33

The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 to 19 were marked. The doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW2. The respondent No.2 examined it's official as RW1 and Ex.R1 & 2 were marked. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded compensation of

¶34

Rs.2,31,700/- under following heads:

¶35

Sl.No.	Heads	Amount
1	Pain and suffering	Rs.10,000/-
2	Attendant charges, food and conveyance charges	Rs.10,000/-
3	Loss of future income	Rs.1,74,900/-
4	Medical expenditure	Rs.1,800/-
5	Future medical expenses	Rs.10,000/-
6	Loss of income during treatment	Rs.15,000/-
7	Loss of amenities and nutrition food	Rs.10,000/-
	Total	Rs.2,31,700/-

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2209 MFA No. 201504 of 2023

¶37

6. It fastened the liability upon the respondent

¶38

No.2-insurance company on the ground that the alleged contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner was not established.

¶39

Being aggrieved by the said the judgment, the insurance company is before this Court in appeal.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that Tribunal erred in holding that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. It being a collision between the two vehicles, the Tribunal should have held that there is contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. His second prong of the argument is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side since a disability stated by PW2 could not have been relied by the Tribunal since he is not a treated doctor.

¶41

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner /respondent No.1 submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just proper and reasonable and the

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2209 MFA No. 201504 of 2023

¶43

Tribunal is justified in assessing the quantum of the compensation by taking 1/3 of the physical disability stated by PW2 as the functional disability. He further submit that the chargesheet being filed against the rider of the respondent No.1, there was no reason to hold that there was any contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner also. Therefore, he defends the impugned judgment and seek dismissal of the appeal.

¶44

A careful perusal of the available records would reveal that the Ferahatabad police had investigated the matter and ultimately filed a chargesheet against the rider of the vehicle of the respondent No.1. This aspect has been considered by the Tribunal in para 11 and 12 of the judgment. It also comes to the conclusion that there is no evidence on record to show that there was any contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that there was no such contributory negligence, being based on the evidence available on record cannot be interfered with simply

¶45

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2209 MFA No. 201504 of 2023

¶46

because the vehicle of the petitioner was also involved. The negligence on the part of the petitioner has not been established and as such the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner.

¶47

So far as the quantum is concerned, the petitioner had sustained fracture of the left patella and he was inpatient for nearly 27 days. The Tribunal observers that there was fracture of the left patella and the suspicious fracture of the first metatarsal. The Tribunal also appreciates the evidence of the PW2, who states that there is a disability of 30% to the left lower limb. It holds that the said disability would amount to functional disability of 10%. Going to the fact that the petitioner was working as a coolie and aged 40 years. Therefore, the assessment of the Tribunal that there is 10% functional disability is also based on the evidence available on record. It is settled principle of law that simply because the doctor who assessed the disability is not a treated

¶48

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2209 MFA No. 201504 of 2023

¶49

doctor, his evidence cannot be discarded. However, such evidence has to be appreciated with caution. In other words, the testimony of a doctor who treated the injured would be on the higher footing than the testimony of the doctor who had not treated an injured. Under these circumstances, this Court do not find any merit in the in the appeal.

¶50

Consequently, appeal is dismissed at the stage of orders itself.

¶51

Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal.

¶52

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶53

SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 CT: AK

The Divisional Manager v. Umesh S/O Manohar Tippankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager v. Umesh S/O Manohar Tippankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Latabai and Ors. Vs Sri.Ganesh and Anr.

Shidlingappa Vs Ashok and Anr.

Bhagawath Vs Basavaraj and Anr.

Arjun@ Somu S/O Ramappa Bandiwaddar Vs Santosha S/O Mallappa Ballolli and Ors.

Paramma@ Parvati W/O Ghaleppa Vs Ningappa and Anr.

The Branch Manager Vs Arjun @ Somu and Ors.