- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3444 MFA No. 201206 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201206 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: TAJAMUL HUSSAIN S/O ABDUL WAHEED, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE/LABOUR, R/O: VILLAGE BAGDAL, TQ: AND DIST: BIDAR – 585 401. …APPELLANT (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SANGAPPA S/O SIDRAM BIRADAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: VILLAE KAMATHANA, TQ. AND DIST: BIDAR – 585 401. (OWNER OF HERO HONDA SPLENDOR MOTORCYCLE BEARING REGN.NO.KA-38/K-8216) 2. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., BRANCH OFFICE VEERABHADRESHWHAR CHAMBERS DOOR NO.8-10-135 AND IA, OPP. NEHRU STADIUM, BIDAR – 585 401. VALID POLICY NO.610403311610001609 VALID FROM 08.03.2017 TO 07.03.2018. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED) Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3444 MFA No. 201206 of 2022 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.08.2021 PASSED BY THE MACT AND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BIDAR IN MVC NO. 377/2019, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Though trial Court records were called for is awaited, learned counsel for appellant submits that appeal is in narrow compass wherein claimant was seeking enhancement under limited heads and was mainly assailing finding of liability. It was submitted tribunal absolved insurer for its liability on ground that driver of offending vehicle did not possess driving licence. However, claimant was third party to contract of insurance policy as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pappu and others v. Vinod Kumar Lamba1 insurer would not escape from its liability insofar as claimant. In view of submission, matter is taken for final disposal. 1 2018 3 SCC 208 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3444 MFA No. 201206 of 2022 2. Challenging judgment and award dated 10.08.2021 passed by MACT & Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bidar in MVC no.377/2019, this appeal is filed. 3. It was submitted that on 09.06.2017, claimant along with wife and son were traveling on motorcycle bearing registration no.KA-38/Q-8859, when they were near petrol pump at Kamathana, rider of motorcycle bearing registration no.KA-38/K-8216, rode it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against claimant’s motorcycle causing accident. In said accident, claimant sustained several grievous and fractural injuries and was admitted to hospital. Despite taking treatment, he did not recover fully and sustained permanent physical disability. Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act, against owner and insurer of offending motorcycle. 4. On contest, wherein respondents denied negligence, involvement of vehicle in accident and insurer alleged violation of policy conditions. 5. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence, wherein claimant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.22. On behalf of respondents- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3444 MFA No. 201206 of 2022 Insurance Company, its official was examined as RW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.R1 and R2. 6. On consideration, Tribunal held accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of insured motorcycle, claimant sustained permanent physical disability as a result of injury sustained in accident and therefore entitled for compensation. It held insurer liable to pay compensation assessed as follows: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/- 2 Medical, attendant and incidental charges Rs.12,000/- 3 Laid up period charges Rs.18,000/- 4 Medical expenses Rs.24,840/- 5 Loss of basic amenities Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.1,09,840/- 7. On ground that rider of insured vehicle did not possess driving licence as on date of accident, it fastened liability on insured. Dissatisfied with finding, claimant was in appeal. 8. It was specifically submitted claimant had sustained several fractural injuries i.e., fracture of left maxilla, fracture of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3444 MFA No. 201206 of 2022 left Zygomatic arch, fracture of left lateral wall of orbit and fracture of left temporal bone and he was away from employment. Tribunal awarded compensation towards loss of income during laid up period for only two months at Rs.9,000/- which was inadequate and sought enhancement. It was also submitted, compensation awarded towards loss of amenities, pain and suffering were also on lower side. On liability, it was submitted issuance of insurance policy was not disputed. Admittedly, claimant was third party to contract of policy, therefore as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pappu’s case (supra) insurer would be liable to pay compensation. On said ground sought for allowing of appeal. 9. On other hand, Sri Deepak Barad, learned counsel for respondent no.2-insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pappu’s case (supra) had held insurer entitled to recover compensation from insured and therefore insurer could not be held fully liable. It was submitted tribunal had assessed just compensation leaving no scope for interference. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3444 MFA No. 201206 of 2022 10. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and award. 11. From above, since claimant is challenging finding of liability as well as for enhancement, points that would arise for consideration are: (i) Whether tribunal was justified in absolving insurer from its liability? (ii) Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation?” 12. From above, it is seen occurrence of accident involving insured vehicle due to rash and negligent riding by its rider, claimant sustaining permanent physical disability and loss of earning capacity and being entitled for compensation are not in dispute. Even, finding of tribunal that rider of offending insured motorcycle did not possess valid and effective driving licence as on date of accident is also not in dispute. It is also seen that insofar as contract of insurance policy is considered, claimant being rider of other motorcycle would be third party. Under said circumstances, ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pappu’s case (supra) would apply. Insurer would be - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3444 MFA No. 201206 of 2022 liable to pay compensation to claimant in first instance and thereafter recover it from insured. Hence, point no.1 in answered in negative. Insurer is held liable to pay compensation in first instance and thereafter recover it from insured. 13. However, claimant sustaining several fractural injuries and alleged loss of earning capacity etc., he did not examined doctor who had treated him. He had produced treatment records, Ex.P5-wound certificate and discharge summary would indicate claimant had sustained several fractures i.e., fracture of left maxilla, fracture of left Zygomatic arch, fracture of left lateral wall of orbit and fracture of left temporal bone. However, fractures are in respect of compact region, award of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering would appear just and proper. Normally, when fractures take about three months to heal, tribunal would not be justified in considering only two months as lay-off period. However, accident occurred in year 2017, notional income for said period would be Rs.10,250/. Claimant would be entitled for compensation of Rs.30,750/- as against Rs.18,000/- awarded by tribunal. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3444 MFA No. 201206 of 2022 14. Since claimant failed to establish disability by examining doctor or production of disability certificate, tribunal was justified in denying compensation towards future loss of income. It has however awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities notionally which appears just and proper and not call for interference. Tribunal has awarded Rs.12,000/- towards medical and other incidental charges and Rs.24,840/- towards medical expenses which appears just and proper. Thus, total compensation would be re-assessed as follows: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/- 2 Medical, attendant and incidental charges Rs.12,000/- 3 Laid up period charges Rs.30,750/- 4 Medical expenses Rs.24,840/- 5 Loss of basic amenities Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.1,22,590/- 15. In view of above, point no.2 is answered partly in affirmative. Consequently, following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3444 MFA No. 201206 of 2022 ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part, Judgment and award dated 10.08.2021 passed by MACT and Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bidar in M.V.C.no.377/2019, is modified, claimant is held entitled for re-assessed compensation of Rs.1,22,590/- as against Rs.1,09,840/- awarded by tribunal with interest at 6% per annum from date of claim petition till deposit. ii. Respondent-insurer is held liable to pay compensation to claimant in first instance and thereafter recover it from insured without recourse to separate proceedings. iii. Insurer is directed to deposit compensation before Tribunal within a period of six weeks. iv. On deposit, entire compensation shall be released to claimant on proper identification. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9