- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14550 MFA No. 3355 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 89 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3355 OF 2015 (MV-I) CONNECTED WITH M.F.A. CROSS-OBJECTION NO.89 OF 2017 (MV-I) IN M.F.A. NO.3355/2015: BETWEEN: M/S. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. 2ND FLOOR, JP & DEVI JAMBUKESWAR ARCADE NO.69, MILLERS ROAD BENGALURU-560 052 REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL CLAIMS MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SAYED AJMAD ULLA S/O. LATE SYED ADAM SAB AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS NO.65, ARALEPETE, BEHIND ICE FACTORY RAMANAGARA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571 511. 2. JAYARAM C.A. S/O. ANKAIAH MAJOR IN AGE NO.618, PIPELINE, 4TH MAIN, SRINAGARA BENGALURU-560 050. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. RAJU, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1, AND R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) * * * THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16-12-2014 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.506 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMANAGARA. Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14550 MFA No. 3355 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 89 of 2017 IN M.F.A. CROSS-OBJECTION NO.89/2017: BETWEEN: SRI SAYED AJMAD ULLA S/O. LATE SYED ADAM SAB AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NO.65, ARALEPETE, BEHIND ICE FACTORY RAMANAGARA TOWN RAMANAGARA. ... CROSS-OBJECTOR (BY SRI S. RAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. 2ND FLOOR, JP & DEVI JAMBUKESHWAR ARCADE NO.69, MILLERS ROAD BENGALURU-560 052. 2. JAYARAM C.A. S/O. ANKAIAH MAJOR IN AGE NO.618, PIPELINE 4TH MAIN, SRINAGARA BENGALURU-560 050. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1, AND R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) * * * THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL CROSS-OBJECTION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI, RULE 22 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16-12-2014 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.506 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL AND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL CROSS-OBJECTION ARE COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14550 MFA No. 3355 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 89 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT These appeals are arising out of common judgment and award dated 16-12-2014 passed in MVC No.506 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara. Hence, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. MFA No.3355 of 2015 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on the ground of liability, whereas MFA Cross- Objection No.89 of 2017 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal. 4. The brief facts of the case of the claimants and the Insurance Company are as under: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14550 MFA No. 3355 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 89 of 2017 On 16-11-2010 at about 6:00 p.m., the claimant was proceeding in his motorcycle on Bengaluru-Mysuru Road near Ghousia College, Ramanagara, at that time, autorickshaw, bearing Registration No.KA-05 B-5043, came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner from Bengaluru Road and dashed to the motorcycle of the claimant. Due to the said impact, the claimant fell down and sustained severe injuries to his legs and other parts of the body. Thus, he was taken to Ramanagara General Hospital for treatment and from there, he was shifted to BGS Global Hospital, Ramanagara, for further treatment, and underwent surgical operation for the injuries sustained by him, and he incurred medical expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-. Thereafter, the claimant lodged First Information Report to the jurisdictional Police, which led to investigation. 5. Due to accidental injuries, the claimant filed a claim petition for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1966. The Tribunal, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.1,57,663/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14550 MFA No. 3355 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 89 of 2017 from the date of the petition till the date of its realisation and directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to jointly and severally to pay compensation to the claimant. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the insurer of the offending vehicle filed M.F.A. No.3355 of 2015 and the claimant filed MFA Cross- Objection No.89 of 2017 seeking enhancement of compensation. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant as well as the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the owner of the autorickshaw did not possess permit and thereby, violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 9. Learned counsel for the claimant has contended that the Tribunal has not granted fair and reasonable compensation on all heads. The accident is of the year 2010. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14550 MFA No. 3355 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 89 of 2017 As per the chart issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income to be considered is at Rs.5,500/- per month for the year 2010, but the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income at Rs.4,500/- per month. Further, permanent disability considered by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prayed to enhance the compensation. 10. In view of the contentions urged by both parties, the points that would arise for the Court’s consideration in these matters are as follows: i. Whether the Insurance Company has made out sufficient grounds that the owner of the autorickshaw did not possess permit and thereby, violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation? ii. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement? - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14550 MFA No. 3355 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 89 of 2017 Point No.i 11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has taken up the contention that the owner of the autorickshaw did not possess valid and effective permit as on the date of the accident and for violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, the Insurance Company denied its liability and prayed to indemnify respondent No.1/owner of the autorickshaw. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of AMRIT PAUL SINGH AND ANOTHER v. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558, observed that if the offending vehicle had no permit to ply within the particular jurisdiction and caused the accident, the Insurance Company cannot be taken aid of for seeking absolution from its liability. If the offending vehicle is used in public place without permit, it is fundamental statutory infraction. Therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court directed the Insurance Company to pay and recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14550 MFA No. 3355 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 89 of 2017 13. In this case, the owner of the autorickshaw used the autorickshaw as a transport vehicle in a public place without valid permit. Under such circumstances, the ratio laid down in the case of Amrit Paul Singh holds good. Hence, the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation to the claimant and later, recover the same from the owner of the autorickshaw. Point No.ii 14. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is as follows: Compensation Heads Amount (in Rs.) Towards pain and agony 30.000.00 Loss of amenities 20,000.00 Rest, nourishment and attendant's charges 900.00 Loss of income during laid up period 13,500.00 Future loss of income 53,460.00 Medical expenses 34,803.00 Conveyance 5,000.00 TOTAL 1,57,663.00 (Rupees One lakh fifty-seven thousand six hundred and sixty-three only) - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14550 MFA No. 3355 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 89 of 2017 15. To substantiate the claim of the claimant, he examined himself on oath as PW1 and relied upon eleven documents. Ex.P4 is the Wound Certificate issued by the Government Hospital stating that the claimant had suffered four injuries, out of which, three were simple in nature and one injury was a fracture and grievous injury caused to the left leg and hence, he was referred to Orthopedic Surgeon. Hence, the claimant went to BGS Global Hospital, Ramanagara. Ex.P5 is another Wound Certificate issued by the BGS Global Hospital, Ramanagara, and found that the claimant had fracture of both bones in his left leg. It is further stated that the claimant was admitted as in-patient and treated by the Orthopedic Department for the period from 16-11-2010 to 20-11-2010. 16. Dr. Venkatram Kumar K. of BGS Global Hospital was examined as PW2. He has stated that he examined the claimant and found fracture of both bones i.e. tibia and fibula (L) leg. Hence, the claimant underwent surgery in the Hospital for fracture of two bones in his left leg. Further, he assessed the disability of the claimant and stated that - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:14550 MFA No. 3355 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 89 of 2017 because of the fracture of both bones in the left leg, there is mal union of two bones and there is some difficulty and restrictive movements caused to the claimant and hence, assessed 31% of the disability for lower limb and 11% disability for whole body. The Tribunal has considered the permanent disability at 9% to the whole body. However, keeping in view the difficulty and restrictive movements of the claimant, it would meet the ends of justice, if the permanent disability is considered at 11% to the whole body. Accordingly, it is considered at 11% to the whole body. 17. The Tribunal, considering the Disability Certificate and nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards 'pain and sufferings', which is not reasonable. The claimant sustained one grievous injury. It is trite law that for one grievous injury, the claimant is entitled for amount of Rs.40,000/- and towards three simple injuries, he is entitled for Rs.5,000/- each, i.e. in all, Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled for Rs.55,000/- under this head. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:14550 MFA No. 3355 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 89 of 2017 18. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head of 'loss of amenities'. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the period spent as in-patient in the Hospital, it is just and reasonable to award Rs.30,000/- under this head. 19. Towards 'nourishment and attendant charges', the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.900/- and towards 'conveyance', it has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-, which is not reasonable one. Hence, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under this head. 20. Towards 'loss of income during laid-up period', the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.13,500/-. In the absence of proof of income, for the accident of the year 2010, Rs.5,500/- is to be taken as notional income as per the chart issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, it is suggested that, the claimant would have been under treatment for a period of three months. Therefore, a sum of Rs.16,500/- (Rs.5,500 X 3 months) is awarded under this head. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:14550 MFA No. 3355 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 89 of 2017 21. So far as 'loss of future income' is concerned, as per the Disability Certificate issued by PW2, permanent disability of 11% to the whole body is considered. Notional income fixed is at Rs.5,500/- per month for the year 2010. The claimant was aged 58 years and hence '11' multiplier is applicable. Hence, under this head, the claimant is awarded Rs.79,860/- (5,500 X 11% X 12 X 11). 22. Towards 'medical expenses', the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.34,803/- which is reasonable amount and hence, no interference is called for in this regard. 23. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the following compensation: HEADS Rs. Towards pain and agony 55,000.00 Loss of amenities 30,000.00 Rest, nourishment, attendant's charges and conveyance 25,000.00 Loss of income during laid-up period 16,500.00 Loss of future income 79,860.00 Medical expenses 34,803.00 TOTAL 2,41,163.00 Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 1,57,663.00 ENHANCED COMPENSATION 83,500.00 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:14550 MFA No. 3355 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 89 of 2017 24. Accordingly, I pass the following O R D E R i. M.F.A. No.3355 of 2015 and M.F.A. Cross- objection No.89 of 2017 are partly allowed. ii. The judgment and award dated 16-12-2014 passed in MVC No.506 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara, is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. iii. The claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,41,163/- (Rupees two lakh forty-one thousand one hundred and sixty-three only) as against Rs.1,57,663/- awarded by the Tribunal. iv. In so far as liability is concerned, The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation, within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with liberty to recover the same from - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:14550 MFA No. 3355 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 89 of 2017 the owner of the offending vehicle in the same proceedings. v. Amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal, forthwith. vi. On deposit of the entire enhanced compensation, the Tribunal is directed to disburse the same in favour of the claimant, on proper identification. vii. No order as to costs. Registry is directed to send the records of the Tribunal along with the copy of this judgment, forthwith. In view of the disposal of the appeal and cross- objection, pending applications, if any, shall stand dismissed. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1