UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs YAMANAPPA NINGAPPA UDDAPPAGOL

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16618
MFA No. 102434 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 104216 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020096712024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI


MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102434 OF 2024
(MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.104216 OF 2024

IN MFA NO. 102434/2024
BETWEEN:

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
MARATHA GALLI, BELAGAVI,
R/BY. DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. YAMANAPPA NINGAPPA UDDAPPAGOL,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, NOW NIL,
R/O. KAPPALAGUDDI VILLAGE,
RAIBAG TALUK-591317,
NOW AT UPPAR GALLI, GOKAK,
GOKAK TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT 590010.

2. MUTTEPPA NINGAPPA UDDAPPAGOL,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAPPALAGUDDI VILLAGE, RAIBAG TALUK-591317,
NOW AT UPPAL GALLI, GOKAK,
GOKAK TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT.
(OWNER OF THE MOTORCYCLE BEARING NO.
KA-71/E-8194)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BAHUBALI N. KANABARGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16618
MFA No. 102434 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 104216 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020096712024


THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
CONNECTED WITH MVC NO.1757/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT
OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, GOKAK, EXAMINE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.03.2024 AS AGAINST THE
APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

IN MFA NO. 104216/2024
BETWEEN:

YAMANAPPA NINGAPPA UDDAPPAGOL,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, NOW NIL,
R/O. KAPPALAGUDDI VILLAGE, RAIBAG TALUK,
NOW AT UPPAR GALLI, GOKAK,
GOKAK TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591329
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BAHUBALI N. KANABARGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MUTTEPPA NINGAPPA UDDAPPAGOL,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAPPALAGUDDI VILLAGE,
RAIBAG TALUK, NOW AT UPPAR GALLI,
GOKAK TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591329.

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
MARATHA GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1-DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS, ALLOW
THE APPEAL AND MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
04.03.2024 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND M.A.C.T, GOKAK, IN MVC NO.1757/2022 AND ENHANCE
THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16618
MFA No. 102434 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 104216 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020096712024


THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 04.03.2024
passed in MVC No.1757/2022 by the I Additional Senior Civil
Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gokak, (for short,
‘the Tribunal’), respondent No.2/insurance company before the
whereas
Tribunal, preferred an appeal in MFA No.102434/2024
the petitioner preferred an appeal in MFA No.104216/2024
seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.

2. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their
ranking before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.03.2022, while
petitioner was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.KA-
71/E-8194 along with his relative towards Babaladi Jatra, a dog
suddenly crossed the road near Belagali village. When he
applied the brake to avoid the dog, he lost control of the
motorcycle and fell down, sustaining multiple injuries, including
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16618
MFA No. 102434 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 104216 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020096712024


fractures to the left scapula with fracture acromion, corocid and
body of the scapula chip fracture on left olecranon. He was
treated as an inpatient at Dr.G.S.Umarani’s Ganga Hospital,
Gokak. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was working as a
coolie and earning Rs.40,000/- per month.

4. Accordingly, petitioner filed a claim petition claiming
compensation.

5. Upon notice, in MFA No.104216/2024 respondent
Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their objections.

6. The respondent No.1 denied the averments of the
petition and contended that, he is the registered owner of the
motorcycle, which was insured with respondent No.2. Hence,
he contended that respondent No.2 is liable to pay any
compensation awarded and sought for dismissal of the petition.

7. The respondent No.2 denied the averments of the
petition and contended that, the alleged accident did not occur
and the insured motorcycle was not involved. It was further
contended that the complaint was lodged after a delay of two
days, which was not properly explained. The petitioner had
allegedly a borrower of the motorcycle and, being the brother
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16618
MFA No. 102434 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 104216 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020096712024


of respondent No.1 and residing with him, does not fall within
the category of a third party. It was also contended that the
rider did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the
accident. Hence, respondent No.2 denied its liability and sought
for dismissal of the petition.

8. On the basis of said contentions of the parties, the
Tribunal has framed the following issues:
“:ISSUES:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he
sustained the alleged grievous injuries in a
road traffic accident arising out of the use of
the motorcycle bearing No.KA-71/E-8194
that occurred on 03.03.2022 on Mahalingpur-
Mudhol road, near Belagali village? (This
issue is recasted on 23.02.2024.)?
2. Whether the 1st respondent proves that the
motorcycle bearing No.KA-71/E-8194 was
insured with the 2nd respondent?
3. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the
alleged accident was not occurred and the
motorcycle bearing No.KA-71/E-8194 was not
involved in the alleged accident?
4. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the
borrower of the motorcycle and pillion rider
are not entitled to claim compensation Under
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16618
MFA No. 102434 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 104216 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020096712024


Section 166 or no fault liability under section
163(a) or 164 of the MV Act?
5. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the
rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-
71/E8194 was not holding a valid and
effective driving license as on the date of the
accident?
6. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the
petitioner and 1st respondent are brothers
and are living in one roof. Hence, the
petitioner does not come under the third
party category?
7. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation as sought in the petition? If so,
at what rate and from whom?
8. What order or award?”

9. Before the Tribunal, petitioner has examined
himself as P.W.1 and a doctor was examined as P.W.2 and got
marked documents as Ex.P1 to 65. On the other hand an
official of respondent No.2 examined as R.W.1 and got marked
Ex.R.1 and R.2.

10. On hearing the argument, the Tribunal partly
allowed the claim petition, fastening liability on the respondents
and awarded compensation under the following heads:
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16618
MFA No. 102434 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 104216 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020096712024


1 Loss of future earnings ₹1,43,750/-
2 Medical expenses ₹1,05,609/-
Total ₹2,49,359/-

11. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent
No.2/insurance company filed appeal in MFA No.102434/2024.

12. Learned counsel Smt.Preeti Shashank for the
insurance company argued that the petitioner is not entitled for
any compensation as he was a tortfeasor himself. Further it is
argued that, the Tribunal has awarded excess compensation by
applying the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, Tribunal
has assessed the disability to the extent of 25% is on higher
side and medical expenses granted by the Tribunal is on higher
side. Accordingly, pray for modification.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as
per the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 the petitioner is
entitled for ₹2,50,000/- as he has suffered grievous injury. In
this case, the petitioner has suffered communicated fracture of
left scapula with fracture acromion, corocid and body of the
scapula chip fracture olecrenon left side. On looking into the
medical records and evidence, it is very clear that the petitioner
suffered grievous injuries. So, In view of the amendment, it is
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16618
MFA No. 102434 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 104216 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020096712024


argued that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of
₹2,50,000/-.

14. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials
available on record. The points that would arise for
consideration by this Court are as follows:

(i) Whether the impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is illegal arbitrary so
as to call for interference by this Court?

(ii) Whether the Tribunal justified in fixing the
liability on respondent No.2 to pay the
compensation?

(iii) What order?

15. Points framed by this Court for consideration are
answered as follows:
Point No.(i) : Partly in the affirmative
Point No.(ii) : In the affirmative
Point No.(iii) : As per the final order, for the
following:
REASONS

16. Regarding Point No.(i): Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the MV Act is a beneficial legislation and
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16618
MFA No. 102434 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 104216 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020096712024


amendment will have retrospective effect. Hence,
compensation of ₹2,50,000/- is to be awarded to the petitioner.

17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ram Murti and
1
Others V. Punjab State Electricity Board , at paragraph
Nos.7 and 8 held as follows:
“ 7. The provisions of Section 140 which formed a
part of Chapter 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988
were omitted by Act 32 of 2019. Simultaneously,
Chapter 11 was substituted of which Section 164
provides for payment of compensation in the case
of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs and in the
case of grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakhs.

8. We are inclined to give the appellants the
benefit of the beneficial provisions which have
been enacted by Parliament. Hence, in
modification of the order of the High Court, we
direct that the appellants shall be entitled to an
amount of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation. However,
if the amount of Rs.50,000/- which has been
awarded by the High Court has already been paid
over, the balance (or the entirety of Rs.5 lakhs if
no amount has been paid) shall be paid over to the
appellants by 30 November 2022.”


18. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Smt.
Pratima and others Vs. Mr.Thalkin Ahamed B.A. and
2
others , at paragraph Nos.19 and 21 held as follows:
“19.With regard to the decision relied by the
learned counsel for the appellant in Ram Murti (supra)

1
2023 ACJ 631
2
MFA No.101145/2021 decided on 25.07.2024
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16618
MFA No. 102434 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 104216 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020096712024


is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the
provisions of Sec. 140 which formed a part of Chapter
10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were omitted by Act
32 of 2019. Simultaneously, Chapter 11 was
substituted of which Section 164 provides for payment
of compensation in the case of death in the amount of
Rs.5 lakhs and in the case of grievous hurt of Rs. 2.5
lakhs. The Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly held that
they are inclined to give to the appellants the benefit of
beneficial provision which have been enacted by the
Parliament. Hence in modification of the order of the
High Court, the Hon’ble Apex Court directed that
appellants shall be entitled to an amount of Rs.5 lakhs
as compensation.
21. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, considering the liability of respondent no.3 as per
the policy of insurance-Ex.R.2 and the award passed by
the Tribunal, respondent no.3 is liable to pay
compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. So also, considering
the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in
mind the old provision of Sub Section (2) of Sec. 163-A
of M.V. Act and Sec. 164 of amended Act, 2019 and
the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Murti
(supra), we deem it appropriate to direct the
respondent no.2 to pay the remaining amount of
Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at 8% p.a.”


19. In this case, admittedly the petitioner met with an
accident and sustained grievous injuries. As held by the Hon’ble
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16618
MFA No. 102434 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 104216 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020096712024


Apex Court in the case of Ram Murti and Others (supra), the
petitioner is also entitled for compensation of ₹2,50,000/- as
against ₹2,49,359/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum. Accordingly, point No.(i) is
answered partly in the affirmative .

20. Regarding point Nos.(ii) and (iii): In view of
finding on point No.(i), this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER

(i) The appeal in MFA No.102434/2024 filed by
the insurance company is dismissed.

(ii) The appeal in MFA No.104216/2024 filed by
the petitioner is allowed in part.

(iii) The impugned judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal is modified. The petitioners
are entitled to receive compensation of
₹2,50,000/- against ₹2,49,359/- as
awarded by the Tribunal.

(iv) The enhanced compensation shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

(v) Respondent No.2 being the Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16618
MFA No. 102434 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 104216 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020096712024


compensation amount with accrued interest
before the Tribunal within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this judgment at the first instance,
and then recover the same from respondent
No.1-owner of the motorcycle.

(vi) Draw modified award accordingly.

(vii) Registry to transmit the Trial Court Records
forthwith.

(viii) In view of disposal of the appeal, pending
applications, if any, does not survive for
consideration. Accordingly, the same are
disposed of.



(K.G.SHANTHI)
JUDGE

SSP
CT:PA
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 42
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026