- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1963 MFA No. 201530 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201530/2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: RAJ AHMED @ RAJSA S/O HUSSAIN SAB, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, NOW NIL, R/O: ARALA HALLI, TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI-585 201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI S.S. SAJJANSHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GUNDERAO S/O MANOHAR RAO M. PATIL, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF ASHOK LEYLAND LORRY NO.KA-32 A-3586, R/O H.NO.02908/39/3A/17, TELKAR LAYOUT, KUSNOOR ROAD, KALABURAGI, TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI-585 101. Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1963 MFA No. 201530 of 2019 2. RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS MANAGER, 3RD FLOOR, ASIAN PLAZA, TIMMAPUR CIRCLE, MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI-585 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S. NAGANAHALLI, ADV., FOR R1; SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV., FOR R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.03.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.197/2016 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT AT SHAHAPUR, AND TO ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION BY AWARDING JUST COMPENSATION WITH INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 MAKING JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI) This appeal is by the petitioner-claimant against the judgment and award dated 14.03.2019 passed in MVC No.197/2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Shahapur, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1963 MFA No. 201530 of 2019 (for short ‘the Tribunal’), challenging the dismissal of the claim petition. 2. The factual matrix of the case are as below: a) On 17.10.2015 at about 7.30 a.m., when the petitioner was going on his motorcycle bearing No.TS-10/EA- 1452 towards his Village Aralahalli, a lorry bearing No.KA-32/A- 3586, owned by respondent No.1, insured by respondent No.2 came from opposite direction and dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner, resulting in the petitioner falling down and he sustained injuries. He was admitted to United Hospital, Kalaburagi and was inpatient from 17.10.2015 to 13.10.2015. A case came to be registered in Crime No.264/2015 by Jewargi Police Station and after investigation the Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet against the offending lorry driver. b) For the injuries suffered by the petitioner, he sought adequate compensation before the Tribunal. c) On being served with the notice, respondent No.1 did not appear and as such he was placed ex-parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company appeared - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1963 MFA No. 201530 of 2019 through its counsel and filed written statement alleging that the petitioner was not having valid Driving License to drive the two wheeler and that the driver of the lorry also did not possess a valid Driving License and therefore, there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. It was contended that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and therefore, deserves to be rejected. d) Based on the contentions of both the parties, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked in evidence. The Doctor, who assessed disability of the petitioner, was examined as PW2. The official of respondent No.2 was examined as RW1 and Ex.R1, the copy of the policy was marked. e) After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal by relying upon the judgment of Delhi High Court, held that the petitioner is not entitled for compensation when the petitioner did not possess a valid Driving Licence, as such, dismissed the claim petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1963 MFA No. 201530 of 2019 3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the materials available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that non- possession of the Driving License by the petitioner is not a ground to reject the claim petition. He submits that the charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the lorry, which prima facie, shows that there was negligence on the part of the lorry driver and therefore, the Tribunal coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for compensation is erroneous. He submits that when the petitioner had no role in the accident by contributing any negligence on his part and when the Investigating Officer had not found any negligent driving by the petitioner, simply because he did not possess Driving License it cannot be held that he is not entitled for the compensation. It is submitted that if the petitioner has committed any wrong, which is an offence under the provisions of law and the appropriate authority would take necessary action against him. Therefore, he submits that the impugned - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1963 MFA No. 201530 of 2019 judgment is not proper and correct. He also submits that the Tribunal has not assessed the compensation and as such, assessment be made by this Court. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that since the petitioner did not have valid Driving License to drive two wheeler it necessarily goes to show that he also has role in the accident. Therefore, she urges this Court to consider any contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. It is submitted that, in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for compensation, such contributory negligence be calculated. 7. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the Tribunal squarely relied on the unreported judgment of the Delhi High Court, wherein, it was held that non-possession of the Driving License by the insured may lead to his disqualification to receive any compensation. Evidently, such proposition of law laid down by the Delhi High Court only has a persuasive effect on this Court. It is pertinent to note that in the accident that occurred the lorry driver was found to have committed the offence of negligent driving. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1963 MFA No. 201530 of 2019 8. The FIR and other police papers produced at Exs.P1 to P8 would show that after thorough investigation the Police have filed the charge-sheet against the lorry driver. The petitioner was not indicted for any of the offence of negligent driving and therefore, it is difficult to accept that there was any negligence on the part of the petitioner. 9. It is relevant to note that, the non-possession of the Driving License by the petitioner to drive a two wheeler can only take us the conclusion that he has committed violation of the certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Such violation would not result in any punitive action against him in other proceedings. If he has committed any wrong by driving the two wheeler without license, the concerned authority may impose the necessary punishment under due process of law. However, the petitioner cannot be debarred from claiming any compensation on account of the wrong committed by any other. Therefore, this Court is unable to concur with the proposition of law laid down by the Delhi High Court on which the Tribunal had relied. It is also pertinent to note that in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SUDHIR KUMAR RANA V. SURINDER SINGH, the Apex Court clarifies this - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1963 MFA No. 201530 of 2019 aspect and states that non-possession of the Driving License cannot be a ground to reject the claim petition. “If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini truck who was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence.” 10. In view of the above, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 11. The petitioner claims that he was aged 35 years at the time of accident. The Wound Certificate marked at Ex.P5 and the Hospital Records also show the same. Therefore, the age of the petitioner is considered as 35 years. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1963 MFA No. 201530 of 2019 12. The perusal of the Wound Certificate at Ex.P5 shows that the petitioner had sustained fracture of the shaft of the left humerus, fracture of the 6th, 7th and 8th ribs, Grade IV splenic injury. As per the Discharge Summary at Ex.P11 (which is illegible) it appears that the petitioner was inpatient for about 13 days. Ex.P11 is unreadable and it is unfortunate the Tribunal also did not insist for a legible copy of the Discharge Summary. After examining the petitioner, PW2 has opined that there is disability of 65% to the left upper limb and 40% to the chest and therefore, he opined that the whole body disability is 30%. 13. It is worthy to note that the petitioner claims that he is a Coolie, aged about 35 years and injuries are to the left humerus, there is decrease in his earning capacity. Considering the fact that the petitioner had sustained fracture of the humerus and that the PW2 had opined that disability of the limb is about 65%, the functional disability of the petitioner is considered at 15%. 14. The accident has occurred in the year 2015 and the petitioner has not produced any material to show that he was - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1963 MFA No. 201530 of 2019 earning Rs.15,000/- per month. There being no material about the income of the petitioner, the notional income has to be considered for the year 2015. 15. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) for settlement of the disputes before the Lok Adalat prescribe the notional income of Rs.8,000/- for the year 2015. In umpteen number of decisions, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by KSLSA are held to be acceptable on the ground that they are in general conformity with the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the notional income of the appellant-petitioner is accepted as Rs.8,000/- per month. Accordingly, the loss of future income on account of permanent disability is assessed at Rs.8,000/- x 12 x 15% x 16 = Rs.2,30,400/-, by adopting multiplier of ‘16’ for the age of 35 years. 16. Consequently, the loss of income during laid up period is calculated as Rs.8,000/- x 2 = Rs.16,000/-. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1963 MFA No. 201530 of 2019 17. The petitioner has suffered the above mentioned injuries and there being spelinic injury, it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering and a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities in life. 18. Since the petitioner was inpatient for a period of 13 days, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded to him under the heads of conveyance, nourishment and attendant’s charges, etc. 19. The petitioner has produced medical bills worth Rs.2,31,899/-. Hence, the petitioner is awarded the said amount. 20. In view of the above, the appellant-petitioner is entitled for total compensation as below: Sl. No. Heads Award amount 1 Injury, pain and sufferings Rs.30,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs.2,31,899/- 3 Loss of income due to permanent physical disability Rs.2,30,400/- 4 Conveyance, nourishment and attendant’s charges Rs.15,000/- - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1963 MFA No. 201530 of 2019 5 Loss of amenities and future unhappiness Rs.40,000/- 6 Loss of income during laid up period Rs.16,000/- Total Rs.5,63,299/- 21. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed and hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified. (iii) The appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,63,299/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition. (iv) The respondent No.2 – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation along with interest before the Tribunal as required under Section 168(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Sd/- (C.M. JOSHI) JUDGE SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61 CT: AK