- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12532 MFA No. 4457 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7055 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4457 OF 2016 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7055 OF 2016 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 4457/2016 BETWEEN: SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA K. V. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SON OF SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA, RESIDING AT NO. 210, KALKUNTE AGRAHARA VILLAGE AND POST, BENGALURU-560 067 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHANKAR REDDY C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NO.41, CRISTU COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, LEVELLY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 2. SRI. S. MANOJ @ MANOJ KUMAR S., SON OF SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT GANAGALUR VILLAGE, HOSAKOTE TALUK, CHIKKATHIRUPATHI POST, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SMT.SRIVIDYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.T.N.VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:29.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12532 MFA No. 4457 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7055 of 2016 NO.217/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & XX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.6,61,447/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. IN MFA NO. 7055/2016 BETWEEN: SRI S.MANOJ @ MANOJ KUMAR S. S/O SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, RESIDING AT GANGALUR VILLAGE, HOSAKOTE TLAUK, CHIKKATHIRUPATHI POST, BENGALURU RUAL DISTRICT ...APPELLANT (BY SMT.SRIVIDYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.T.N.VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.41, CRISTU COMLPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, LEVELLY ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001 2. SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA, MAJOR, R/AT NO.210, KALKUNTE, AGARAHARA POST, BENGALURU 560 067 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. SHANKAR REDDY C., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:29.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.217/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & XX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12532 MFA No. 4457 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7055 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.C.No.217/2014 dated 29.02.2016 by the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge and XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Member M.A.C.T, Bengaluru, both the owner of the vehicle as well as the claimant are before this Court. The owner's appeal is MFA.No.4457/2016 and the claimant's appeal is MFA.No.7055/2016. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 21.10.2013 at about 4.30 p.m., the claimant was proceeding as a pillion rider on a motor cycle and it was ridden by his friend one Sri.Bharath, on the left side of the road. When the motor cycle reached near Kadumuthsandra gate, Lakkur Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, the Tractor came from Kadumuthsandra gate in a rash and negligent manner, without observing traffic rules and dashed against motor cycle. Due to the impact, the claimant and rider of the motor cycle fell down and sustained multiple grievous - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12532 MFA No. 4457 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7055 of 2016 injuries over the body. He was taken to the hospital and he had spent huge amount towards the treatment. 3. When it comes to the liability, the Tribunal has held that the contents of Exs.P.1 to P.6 prima facie establishes the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. The Tribunal has observed that the company has issued a Commercial Vehicle policy to the Tractor. The said Tractor has been used as a water tanker as on the date of the accident. As the 2nd respondent i.e., the appellant herein has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and a copy of the insurance policy Ex.R.1 is produced before the Court and it clearly disclosed that the Insurance Company has issued policy for Agriculture Tractor GT. As per the records placed before the tribunal, the policy was issued for Agriculture Tractor and not to the Trailer and Tanker. Therefore, the owner of the tractor has violated the terms and conditions of policy. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured of the offending Tractor and the owner is liable to pay the compensation. The Trial Court had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.6,61,447/- as per the table given below: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12532 MFA No. 4457 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7055 of 2016 Sl. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1. Pain and suffering : Rs. 40,000/- 2. Medical expenses : Rs. 3,03,527/- 3. Food and nourishment expenses : Rs. 10,000/- 4. Conveyance charges : Rs. 10,000/- 5. Attendant charges : Rs. 15,000/- 6. Loss of income during the period of treatment (Rs.7,000x3 months) : Rs. 21,000/- 7. Loss of Future Earnings (Rs.1,120x12x18) : Rs. 2,41,920/- 8. Loss of amenities of life and disability and marriage prospects : Rs. 20,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 6,61,447/- 4. Learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle submits that the complaint is given after two days from the date of accident. It is submitted that they have never used the vehicles for the purposes as stated and they have been using it as a water tanker. According to the learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle, the vehicle is used for agricultural purpose and the Tribunal basing on the Police records had given a finding that the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It is submitted that the burden lies on the Insurance Company to prove that the tractor is used, other than the purposes - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12532 MFA No. 4457 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7055 of 2016 for which the insurance policy is issued and the Tribunal without considering all these aspects had fixed the liability on the owner of the vehicle which is contrary to the material on record. It is submitted that basing on the charge sheet, the Tribunal cannot give such a finding. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that whatever are the violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the claimant, being a third party to the insurance policy, is not concerned with the same. The Tribunal ought to have applied the principle of pay and recover. It is submitted that when it comes to the compensation, the compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering, the income that is considered, loss of future earnings, loss of amenities in life, is on the lower side and it needs to be enhanced. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had rightly considered the evidence on record and rightly held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as there is a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and even on the compensation also, the Tribunal had granted - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12532 MFA No. 4457 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7055 of 2016 just and reasonable compensation and no interference is called for. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. Coming to the aspect of liability, a crime was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle for the rash and negligent driving and in that, there is a description about how the vehicle is used. As per the First Information Report and other reports, the vehicle is used as a water tanker, whereas the policy is issued for the agricultural purpose. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle is that the burden lies on the Insurance Company, which this Court is not able to appreciate. When a petition is filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, the initial burden lies on the claimant which the claimant had discharged and now if the owner of the vehicle is disputing the same, he should have adduced the evidence. Admittedly, in this case, no such evidence is adduced. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any reason to interfere as far as the said finding with regard to the liability is concerned and the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12532 MFA No. 4457 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7055 of 2016 the appeal of the owner of the vehicle is liable to be dismissed. 8. Coming to the case of the claimant, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the claimant, the claimant is a third party to the insurance policy. Even if there are violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, it is between the insurer and the insured. Hence, in the light of the settled law, the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 9. Coming to the compensation, the claimant had sustained two fractures. Under the head of pain and suffering, the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.40,000/-. Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.3,03,527/-. Towards food and nourishment expenses, conveyance charges and attendant charges, the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and an amount of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12532 MFA No. 4457 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7055 of 2016 Rs.15,000/- respectively which is reasonable and this court is not interfering with the same. 10. This accident had occurred in the year 2013. The Tribunal had taken the income of the claimant at Rs.7,000/- per month. Towards loss of income during the period of treatment, considering the chart prepared by the Legal Services Authority, this Court is taking the income at Rs.8,000/- per month and considering the injuries sustained by him and the hospitalization for 4 months, an amount of Rs.32,000/- (Rs.8,000x4 months) is granted towards loss of income during the period of treatment. Towards loss of future earnings, considering the income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/-, by applying the multiplier at 18 and considering the disability at 16%, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.2,76,480/- (Rs.8,000x12x18x16/100). Towards loss of amenities, considering the disability of 16%, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.30,000/-. Towards loss of marriage prospects, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is granted. 11. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala vs. M. Malathi and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12532 MFA No. 4457 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7055 of 2016 Another1, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. 12. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: SL. No. Heads Compensation Awarded by Tribunal Compensation Awarded by this Court 1. Pain and suffering : Rs. 40,000/- 60,000/- 2. Medical expenses : Rs. 3,03,527/- 3,03,527/- 3. Food and nourishment expenses : Rs. 10,000/- 10,000/- 4. Conveyance charges : Rs. 10,000/- 10,000/- 5. Attendant charges : Rs. 15,000/- 15,000/- 6. Loss of income during the period of treatment (Rs.8,000x4 months) : Rs. 21,000/- 32,000/- 7. Loss of Future Earnings (Rs.8,000x12x18x16/100) : Rs. 2,41,920/- 2,76,480/- 8. Loss of amenities of life and disability and marriage prospects : Rs. 20,000/- 50,000/- 9. Legal Expenses : Rs. 00/- 10,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 6,61,447/- 7,67,007/- Enhancement : Rs. 1,05,560/- 13. Altogether, the claimant is entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs. 7,67,007/-. 1 (2014) 11 SCC 178 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12532 MFA No. 4457 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 7055 of 2016 14. MFA.No.7055/2016 filed by the claimant is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.6,61,447/- to Rs.7,67,007/-. 15. MFA No.4457/2016 filed by the owner of the vehicle is dismissed. i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ii. The Insurance Company shall pay the compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. iii. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the tribunal and the remaining amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company. iv. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. v. No costs. vi. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 Page No.11 is retyped and replaced vide court order dated: 04.06.2025.