- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3184 MFA No. 201283 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201283 OF 2021 (MV-I) BETWEEN: VIJAYKUMAR S/O NARASAPPA, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, NOW NIL, R/O: FARHATABAD, TQ: AND DIST: KALABURAGI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MALKAPPA @ MALLIKARJUN S/O SANGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BUTNAL, TQ: JEWARGI, DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 310. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, OPP: MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI – 585 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.03.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND M.A.C.T., AT KALABURAGI IN M.V.C. NO.257/2019 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3184 MFA No. 201283 of 2021 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, 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 02.03.2021 passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi, (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC no.257/2019, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Sanjeev Patil, learned counsel submitted appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted on 18.11.2018 when he was riding pillion on motorcycle bearing Chassis no.MD2A11CY3JWE16077, along with owner cum rider - respondent no.1, insured with respondent no.2, it dashed against signboard near KEB Office, Kalaburagi, causing grievous injuries to claimant. Despite taking treatment in Dr.Kamareddy Hospital and Kothadia Nursing Home, Solapur, but he did not recover fully leading to amputation of left leg above knee. Due to same, he suffered loss of earning capacity and filed claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act, against owner and insurer of motorcycle. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3184 MFA No. 201283 of 2021 3. On contest wherein respondents no.1 and 2 filed objections denying age, occupation and income of claimant as well as alleged violation of policy conditions by insured vehicle. Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself as PW1 and Dr.Ravi Shivaraya as PW2. Exhibits P1 to P20 were marked. Respondent – insurer examined its official and official of RTO as RWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits R1 to R.4. 4. On consideration, tribunal held, accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by its rider, claimant is entitled for compensation with interest at 6% as follows: Sl.No. Particulars Amount. a. Towards injury pain and suffering `.50,000/- b. Towards medical expenses `.4,18,400/- c. Towards Future Medical expenses `.75,000/- d. Towards food and extra nourishment and medical attendant `.8,800/- e. Towards conveyance `.10,000/- f. Towards loss of income during treatment `.23,500/- g. Towards permanent disability `.21,15,300/- h. Deprivation of future amenities `.50,000/- Total compensation Round off to `.27,51,000/- 5. It however absolved insurer and held owner liable to pay compensation, as rider of motorcycle was not having - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3184 MFA No. 201283 of 2021 valid and effect driving licence to ride it. Dis-satisfied with award, claimant had preferred this appeal. 6. It was firstly submitted, since appellant-claimant was a third party to contract of Insurance and offending motorcycle was insured, totally absolving insurer not justified. 7. On quantum, it was submitted accident resulted in several grievous fractures and amputation of left leg. Under such circumstances, award of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering was inadequate and sought enhancement. It was submitted that tribunal awarded Rs.75,000/-. Further following opinion of PW.2 - doctor, it awarded compensation for artificial limb under head of future medical expenses, it did not provide for periodic replacement of artificial limb and sought modification. 8. Tribunal awarded Rs.23,500/- towards loss of income during treatment by taking three months period as layoff. Since there is amputation, same was not adequate and sought enhancement. Likewise, award towards food, and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3184 MFA No. 201283 of 2021 nourishment and conveyance at Rs.18,800/- was not adequate and sought enhancement. 9. It was submitted, even award of Rs.50,000/- only towards future amenities when claimant was 22 years of age, and amputation resulted in disfigurement was not justified. It was submitted tribunal had also not added future prospects, since disability assessed was to extent of 90%. On above grounds sought enhancement. 10. Sri Sanjay M Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.2-insurer on other hand opposes appeal. It was submitted rider of insured motorcycle was admittedly not having driving licence to ride, possession of driving licence to drive light motor vehicle would establish violation of policy conditions. Therefore tribunal was justified in fastening liability on owner and on quantum also award was justified and no enhancement was possible. 11. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and decree and record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3184 MFA No. 201283 of 2021 12. From above and since claimant is assailing finding of tribunal on liability as well as seeking for enhancement, following points would arise for consideration: “1. Whether tribunal was justified in absolving insurer and hold owner liable to pay compensation? 2. Whether claimant was entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for? 13. Point No.1: Admittedly, claimant was third party to contract of insurance. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shamanna and Another v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2018 SC 3726, held insurer was liable to pay compensation to claimant in first instance and thereafter recover it from insured. In view of said ratio, tribunal would not be justified in absolving insurer. Point for consideration is therefore answered partly in affirmative. 14. Point no.2: Claimant was 22 years of age and an agricultural coolie as on date of accident. As observed by tribunal, claimant sustained fracture of left humerus and amputation of left knee. Therefore, award of Rs.50,000/- towards ‘pain and suffering’ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3184 MFA No. 201283 of 2021 would not be justified. Taking note of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, same would be inadequate. Considering age injuries sustained and amputation, it would be appropriate to award Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering. Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,18,400/- towards medical expenses in complete reimbursement of amount for which medical bills were furnished. Same would not call for enhancement. Further, PW.2 deposed about need for artificial limb by claimant. Though tribunal has awarded Rs.75,000/- towards same under head future medical expenses, it failed to account for periodical replacement of artificial limb. It would be appropriate to award Rs.1,50,000/-towards same. Taking three months period as lay off, tribunal awarded Rs.23,500/- towards loss of income during laid up period; Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance and Rs.8,800/- towards food, nourishment etc. Since there is amputation of left leg, period of layoff has to be taken as six months. Thus compensation towards ‘loss of income’ during laid up period, is Rs.70,500/-. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3184 MFA No. 201283 of 2021 Taking note of period of inpatient, it would be appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- towards food, attendance and conveyance etc. While award of Rs.50,000/- towards of loss of amenities would be inadequate and enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/-. In Mohd. Sabeer Alia Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P., State Board Transport Corporation reported in (2023) 20 SCC 774, it is held that even in case of personal injury claims, future prospects would require to be added to monthly income. Following said ratio and taking note of fact that claimant was 27 years of age and self-employed, 40% has to be added to monthly income. Thus compensation under head of future loss of income would require calculation as follows: Rs.11,750/-+40%X12X90%X18= Rs.31,97,880/- Sl.No. Particulars Amount. a. Towards injury pain and suffering `.1,50,000/- b. Towards medical expenses `.4,18,400/- c. Towards Future Medical expenses `.1,50,000/- d. Towards food and extra nourishment and medical attendant & conveyance `.25,000/- e. Towards loss of income during treatment `.70,500/- f. Future loss of income `.31,97,880/- g. Towards loss of amenities `.1,50,000/- Total compensation Round off to (`41,61,780/-) ````.41,61,800/- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3184 MFA No. 201283 of 2021 Thus, claimant would be entitled for total compensation of ````.41,61,800/-. Point no.2 for consideration is answered partly in affirmative. Consequently following: ORDER i) Appeal is partly allowed. ii) Judgment and award dated 02.03.2021 passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi, in MVC no.257/2019 is modified and claimant is held entitled for total compensation of `.41,61,800/- as against `.27,51,000/- awarded by tribunal with interest at 6% per annum from date of petition till deposit. iii) Respondent no.2-insurer would be liable to pay said amount to claimant in first instance and thereafter recover same from insured without recourse to separate proceedings. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3184 MFA No. 201283 of 2021 24.06.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER ON BEING SPOKEN TO Matter is listed for ‘being spoken to’. Since, there was arithmetical error in computation of compensation. Learned counsel for appellant brought to notice of same. Error is rectified. Total compensation would be `41,61,800/-. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE sn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1