Ningappa S/O.Veerabhadrappa Badiger Vs Sri Balesh S/O.Appanna Kotagi

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10264 MFA No. 21589 of 2013

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21589 OF 2013 (MV-)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. NINGAPPA S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA BADIGER, AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT: SHINDIHATTI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRIYUTHS. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI AND ABHISHEK BARIGIDAD, ADVS)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. BALESH S/O. APPANNA KOTAGI AGED 40 YEARS, R/AT: HOSUR, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶12

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMARB SHELAR MOHANKUMARB SHELARDate: 2025.09.01 11:21:11 +0530

¶15

(BY SRIYUTHS. D.V.PATTAR AND P.R.BHAGOJI, ADVS FOR R1; & SMT. SHARMILA M PATIL, ADV FOR R2)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:29-11-2012 PASSED IN MVC. NO.2479/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-I AND PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10264 MFA No. 21589 of 2013

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

¶24

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the claimant, challenging the judgment and award dated 29.11.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.2479/2011 by the learned M.A.C.T.-I and Principal District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum.

¶25

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:

¶26

On 08.08.2011 at about 12.30 p.m., the claimant was travelling on a Hero Passion Plus motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-49/J-5356 from Hidkal Dam towards Kesarur village, and one Balesh Appanna Kotagi was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner lost control over it, and the vehicle turtled on the road, causing an accident. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The claimant was admitted to the hospital as an inpatient for 24 days and he incurred a

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10264 MFA No. 21589 of 2013

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

huge medical expenses. It is contended that the claimant was running a pan shop and he was a milk collecting agent, and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. from the pan shop business, and Rs.6,000/- p.m. from the milk dairy commission. The claimant has sustained disability and could not do the work as he was doing before the accident. It is contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle. Respondent No.1 is the owner, and rider of the motorcycle, and respondent No.2 is the insurer. Therefore, the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner of the motorcycle. Hence, prays to allow the claim petition.

¶30

Respondent No.1-owner/rider of the motorcycle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that he was riding the motorcycle with due care and caution by following the traffic rules and held a valid and effective driving license. The accident occurred while the insurance policy was in force. Hence, as per the policy conditions, it

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10264 MFA No. 21589 of 2013

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

is the insurance company which is liable to pay the compensation, if any, to the claimant. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition as against him.

¶35

Respondent No.2-insurance company filed a statement of objections contending that the claimant and the owner of the motor cycle, in the claimant and the owner of the motor cycle with each other, filed the claim petition, and that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. Hence, it is contended that there is a violation of policy conditions. Respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the claimant. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company.

¶36

The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

¶37

The claimant, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined one doctor as PW-2, and marked 31 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-31. The respondents

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10264 MFA No. 21589 of 2013

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

have not led any oral evidence. However, the insurance

¶42

policy was marked as Ex.R-1, with consent.

¶43

The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 29.11.2012 and held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,62,850/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization and dismissed the claim petition as against the insurance company. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition as against the insurance company, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.

¶44

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the claimant, the learned counsel for respondent No.1owner of the motorcycle, and the learned law for respondent No.2-insurance company.

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10264 MFA No. 21589 of 2013

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that

¶48

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He submits that the petitioner has been admitted as inpatient for 24 days. He submits that the claimant spent a huge amount towards medical expenses, and in to prove the disability, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2, who opined that the claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 35% to the whole body, whereas the Tribunal has considered the disability at 12% which is on the lower side. He also submits that the compensation awarded under the other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶49

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company submits that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Hence, there is a breach of policy conditions, and the Tribunal was justified in

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10264 MFA No. 21589 of 2013

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

dismissing the claim petition against the insurance company. Hence, she prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶53

Learned counsel for the owner of the motorcycle submits that, as the vehicle was insured with the insurance company, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. He also submits that the rider of the motorcycle possessed a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶54

Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶55

The point, that would arise for consideration is regarding the liability, and the quantum.

¶56

Regarding liability:

¶57

15. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident, and also the injuries sustained by the claimant, in the road traffic accident. The claimant has

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10264 MFA No. 21589 of 2013

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

produced a certified copy of the charge sheet marked as Ex.P-7, which discloses that a criminal case was registered against the rider of the motorcycle, and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of

¶61

the motorcycle. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in recording its finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle. Insofar as the liability is concerned, the respondentinsurance company has taken a specific defence in the written statement that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. The rides of the motorcycle has produced

¶62

the extract of the driving licence by filing a memo dated 03.03.2022 before this Court. From the perusal of the extract of driving licence produced by the rider of the motorcycle, it discloses that a light motor vehicle licence was issued to him, with effect from 02.06.2012. Admittedly the accident took place on 08.08.2011. Hence, as of the date of the accident, the rider of the motorcycle

¶63

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10264 MFA No. 21589 of 2013

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. The motorcycle was ridden by the person who did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, which shows the violation of the policy conditions. Hence, the Tribunal was justified

¶66

in dismissing the claim petition against the insurance company. However, the motorcycle was insured with the insurance company and the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the motorcycle. Hence, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant awarded by the Tribunal at the first instance and recover the same from the rider and owner of the motorcycle in accordance with law.

¶67

Regarding quantum of compensation:

¶68

It is not in dispute that the claimant sustained a grievous injuries in the road traffic accident. To prove that the claimant has suffered permanent disability, he has examined the doctor as PW-2, who has deposed that, he examined the claimant on 01.08.2012, and issued a

¶69

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10264 MFA No. 21589 of 2013

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

disability certificate marked as Ex.P-11, which shows that the claimant has suffered a permanent physical disability to the extent of 35% to the lower limb. The Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability at 12%, which is on the lower side. Considering the wound certificate at Ex.P-5, disability certificate at Ex.P-11, and the evidence of the doctor/PW-2 who opined that the claimant has suffered a permanent physical disability to the extent of 35% to the lower limb, this Court re-asses the permanent disability at 15%. Considering the entire evidence on record, this Court

¶72

re-assess the compensation, under the following heads:

¶73

Sl.No.	HEADS	AMOUNT
1.	Pain and suffering	Rs.25,000/-
2.	Medical expenses	Rs.22,750/-
3.	Loss of amenities	Rs.50,000/-
4.	Special diet, conveyance and incidental charges	Rs.20,000/-
5.	Attendant charges	Rs.20,000/-
6.	Loss of earning during hospitalization	Rs.33,000/-
7.	Loss of future income (Rs.6,600x12x15%x11)	Rs.1,30,680/-
	Total	Rs.3,01,430/-
Less:	compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.1,62,850/-
	Enhanced compensation	Rs.1,38,580/-

¶74

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10264 MFA No. 21589 of 2013

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,01,430/- as against Rs.1,62,850/i.e., additional compensation of Rs.1,38,58/-.

¶77

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶78

ORDER

¶79

(i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part.

¶80

(ii) The judgment and award dated 29.11.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.2479/2011 by the learned M.A.C.T.-I and Principal District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum is hereby modified.

¶81

(iii) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,38,580/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶82

(iv) The respondent insurance company is liable to pay the entire compensation amount in the first instance and recover the same from the

¶83

12 -

¶84

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10264 MFA No. 21589 of 2013

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

owner/rider of the motor cycle in accordance with law.

¶87

(v) The respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and recover the same from the owner/rider of the motor cycle in accordance with law.

¶88

(vi) The office is directed to transmit the records to the Tribunal.

¶89

SD/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

¶90

NAA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Ningappa S/O.Veerabhadrappa Badiger v. Sri Balesh S/O.Appanna Kotagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ningappa S/O.Veerabhadrappa Badiger v. Sri Balesh S/O.Appanna Kotagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Allisab S/O Rajesab Shetsanadi Vs Imitiyaz S/O Mehaboobsab Dharwad

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs K Kallappa S/O. Devirappa

Harif @ Md.Hariff S/O. Haroon Basheer Vs Praveen Kumar G S/O. Sattanna

The Branch Manager Vs Kavita W/O Basu Indawar

Shivarudrappa Hanumanthappa Vs Rachappa Fakkirappa Byahatti

Shrikant Bin Anandrao Kadam Vs Mohan Bin Ramaji Belagundkar