- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3408 MFA No. 202439 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202439 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHRI. REDDY @ NALLAREDDY S/O HANUMANTHAPPA @ HANUMANTHA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: WATCHMAN & AGRICULTURE, R/O: H.NO.52, GONAL VILLAGE RAICHUR, TQ & DIST: RAICHUR – 584 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI.JAMBAYYA S/O HANUMANTHA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER & OWNER OF AUTO BG.NO.KA 36/B 0659, R/O: JEGARKAL VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: RAICHUR – 584 101. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., MAHANTH ARCADE, MAHANTH NAGAR, TEMPLE ROAD, KALABURAGI – 585 103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 INSURER TO PAY THE COMPENSATION, BY SUITABLY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.01.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE (MACT) AT RAICHUR, IN MVC NO. 577/2015, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3408 MFA No. 202439 of 2019 THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 29.01.2019 passed by Prl. District and Sessions Judge (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Raichur, (for short, ‘tribunal’) in MVC no.577/2015, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Arunkumar Amargundappa, learned counsel submitted appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation and shifting liability upon insurer. It was submitted, on 05.04.2015 at about 1.00 p.m., when claimant was proceeding in an auto bearing no.KA-36/B-065 towards Matha Manikeshwari Math, Raichur, driver of said auto drove it in rash and negligent manner causing it to turtle. Due to same, he sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Raichur. Despite taking treatment including surgery, he did not recover fully and sustained permanent physical disability/loss of earning capacity. Hence, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act, against owner and insurer of auto. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3408 MFA No. 202439 of 2019 3. On contest, owner and insurer of offending vehicle appeared and opposed petition. 4. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence, wherein claimant and Dr.Rajednra Kothari were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.11. On behalf of respondents, its official was examined as RW-1 and one witness as RW.2 and Exs.R-1 to R8 were marked. 5. On consideration, tribunal held accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of auto by its driver and claimant was entitled for compensation computed as under: For pain & suffering. Rs.30,000/- For medical expenses. Rs.10,000/- For attendant charges Rs.6,000/- For nourishing, extra nourishment and for special diet. Rs.5,000/- For loss of future earning on account of disability suffered to the extent of 7% to whole body. Rs.55,440/- For loss of earning during the treatment period for two months at the rate of Rs.6,000/ p.m. Rs.12,000/- Future medical treatment. Rs.10,000/- For loss of amenities. Rs.5,000/- Total Rs.1,33,440/- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3408 MFA No. 202439 of 2019 6. On ground that driver of auto was not holding valid driving license and vehicle did not have permit, tribunal held owner liable to pay compensation. Assailing award, claimant was in appeal not only for enhancement, but, also for holding insurer liable to pay compensation. 7. It was firstly submitted claimant was passenger in auto and therefore, was third party to contract of insurance. In view of ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pappu and Ors. v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Anr., reported in 2018 (3) SCC 308, insurer would be required to pay compensation to claimants in first instance and thereafter recover same from insured. 8. Further, Division Bench of this Court in MFA no.201648/2015 and connected matters, disposed of on 26.11.2020 has held violation of permit would at best attract penalty and insurer could not escape liability on said ground. 9. On other hand, Sri S S Aspalli, contended that taking note of fact that driver of auto was not having license, tribunal had held owner liable to pay compensation. Therefore, award did not call for interference. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3408 MFA No. 202439 of 2019 10. From above, since claimant is in appeal challenging finding of tribunal on liability, as well as for enhancement of compensation, points that arise for consideration are: i) Whether tribunal was justified in absolving insurer from liability? ii) Whether claimant is are entitled for enhancement of compensation? Point no.1: 11. Admittedly, claimant was passenger in auto and as such, third party to contract of insurance. Tribunal discharged insurer from liability on sole ground that driver of auto did not have valid driving license. Therefore, ratio in case of Pappu(supra) would apply and insurer has to be held liable to pay compensation to claimant in first instance and thereafter, recover it from insured without recourse to separate proceedings. Point no.1 is answered in negative. Point no.2: 12. On quantum, it is seen accident occurred in year 2015. Claimant was stated to be working as watchman and earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. But, he did not substantiate it with specific evidence. In absence, tribunal assessed it notionally. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3408 MFA No. 202439 of 2019 But, notional income for year 2015 is Rs.8,000/-. Same has to be considered. As per, Ex.P-2 i.e. wound certificate, Ex.P-7 i.e. discharge summary, claimant sustained fracture of symphysis menti and mandible. Considering same, award towards Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering would be justified. Even award of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses against bills produced, Rs.6,000/- towards attendant and Rs.5,000/- towards diet etc., for 5 days inpatient period would be justified. 13. Normally, fractures take 3 months to heal. Therefore, claimant would be entitled for Rs.24,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. PW-2 examined claimant and assessed disability at 36%. Taking note of fact that he was not an ENT specialist or dentist, tribunal moderated assessment of loss of earning capacity to 7%. Since, there is fracture to mandible assessment of functional disability by tribunal appears justified. Thus, future loss of income has to be recomputed as follows: Rs.8,000/- x 7% x 12 x 11 = Rs.73,920/-. 14. Taking note of fracture sustained and disability caused award of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities would - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3408 MFA No. 202439 of 2019 not be justified and same is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards future medical expenses, which is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. Point no.2 answered partly in affirmative. 15. Consequently, following: ORDER i) Appeal is allowed in part, judgment and award dated 29.01.2019 passed in MVC no.577/2015 by Prl. District and Sessions Judge (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Raichur, is modified, claimant is held entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,83,920/- as against Rs.1,33,440/- awarded by tribunal with interest at 6% per annum from date of claim petition till deposit. ii) Respondent no.2-insurer is held liable to pay said amount to claimant in first instance and thereafter recover same from insured without recourse to separate proceedings. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3408 MFA No. 202439 of 2019 iii) On deposit, condition for deposit and release would apply as per order of tribunal. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE NJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41 Ct;Vk