- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12398 MFA No. 102144 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102145 of 2019 MFA No. 102146 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102144 OF 2019 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102145 OF 2019 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102146 OF 2019 IN MFA NO.102144/2019 BETWEEN: SMT. SHAKEELA W/O. APPASAB MULLA, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE and MILK VENDING, NOW NIL, R/O: BUDHIHAL, PIN: 591108, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. SALEEM S/O. ABDULSAB MULLA AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BUDHIHAL, PIN: 591108, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, MERCHANTS BANK BUILDING, S.R. CIRCLE BAILOGAL, PIN: 591110, DIST: BELAGAVI, R/BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-SERVED) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12398 MFA No. 102144 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102145 of 2019 MFA No. 102146 of 2019 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT,1988, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T, BAILAHONGAL, IN MVC NO-2543/2014 DATED 30-04-2018 AND FIX THE LIABILITY ON RESPONDENT NO-2 INSURER OF VEHICLE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN MFA NO.102145/2019 BETWEEN: SMT.RAZIYA BEGAM W/O. ABDULSAB MULLA AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: KIRANI SHOP and MILK VENDING, NOW NIL, R/O: BUDHIHAL, PIN: 591108, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI.SALEEM S/O. ABDULSAB MULLA AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BUDHIHAL, PIN: 591108, TQ: BAILHONGAL, PIN: 591108, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, MERCHANTS BANK BUILDING, S.R. CIRCLE BAILHONGAL, PIN: 591110, DIST: BELAGAVI, R/BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.N.R KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1- SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT,1988, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T, BAILAHONGAL, IN MVC NO-2223/2014 DATED 30-04-2018 AND FIX - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12398 MFA No. 102144 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102145 of 2019 MFA No. 102146 of 2019 THE LIABILITY ON RESPONDENT NO-2 INSURER OF VEHICLE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN MFA NO.102146/2019 BETWEEN: SMT. JAIBUN W/O. DILAWARSAB MULLA AGE:42 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE and MILK VENDING, NOW NIL R/O: BUDHIHAL PIN:591108 TQ:BDILHONGAL, DIST:BELAGAVI …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. SALEEM S/O. ABDULSAB MULLA, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O: BUDHIHAL, PIN:591108 TQ:BAILHONGAL DIST:BELAGAVI. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD BRANCH OFFICE, MERCHANTS BANK BUILDING, S.R.CIRCLE BAILHONGAL PIN:591110 DIST:BELAGAVI R/BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT,1988, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T, BAILAHONGAL, IN MVC NO-2224/2014 DATED 30-04-2018 AND FIX THE LIABILITY ON RESPONDENT NO-2 INSURER OF VEHICLE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12398 MFA No. 102144 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102145 of 2019 MFA No. 102146 of 2019 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT These Appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V Act’ for short) by the petitioners, challenging the common judgment and award dated 30.04.2018 passed in MVC Nos. 2223, 2224 and 2543 of 2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows: On 24.11.2013, the petitioners were travelling as passengers in the Auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA- 24/3982. The driver of the Auto rickshaw drove the Auto rickshaw in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the Auto rickshaw turned turtle and the accident was caused. The petitioners have sustained grievous injuries and filed the claim petitions in M.V.C.Nos. 2223, 2224 and 2543 of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12398 MFA No. 102144 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102145 of 2019 MFA No. 102146 of 2019 2014 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T, Bailhongal. Accordingly, they pray to allow the claim petitions. 3. The owner of the offending vehicle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petitions and contended that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence and the policy was valid as of the date of the accident. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petitions against the owner of the offending vehicle. 4. Insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petitions and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident, and that the Auto rickshaw carried an excess number of passengers. There is a violation of the policy conditions. Hence, on these grounds, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12398 MFA No. 102144 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102145 of 2019 MFA No. 102146 of 2019 prays to dismiss the claim petitions against the insurance company. 5. The tribunal clubbed the claim petitions, framed the common issues and the common evidence was recorded. 6. The petitioners in all the claim petitions examined themselves as PW.1 to PW.3, examined the doctor as PW.4, and marked 33 documents as Exs.P1 to P.33. Conversely, the owner of the vehicle, has not entered the witness box. The insurance company has examined it’s officer as RW1, and marked 4 documents as Exs.R1 to R4. 7. The tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part vide common judgment dated 30.04.2018 and awarded a compensation of ₹62,050/-, ₹59,575/- and ₹74,050/- respectively, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition till its realisation and dismissed the claim petitions against the insurance company on the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12398 MFA No. 102144 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102145 of 2019 MFA No. 102146 of 2019 ground that the owner carried the passengers exceeding the seating capacity and he did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. Thus, the petitioners, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and liability, filed these Miscellaneous First Appeals. 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for the insurance company. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that seating capacity of the Auto rickshaw is 3, and the driver. The Auto rickshaw can carry 3 passengers and a driver, wherein the claim petitions have been filed only by the three passengers i.e., three claim petitions were filed. Further, the driver of the Auto rickshaw possessed a LMV licence. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12398 MFA No. 102144 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102145 of 2019 MFA No. 102146 of 2019 LIMITED reported in 2017(14) SCC 663 and JAGADISH KUMAR SOOD VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 240 OF 2017. Hence, he submits that the tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim petitions against the Insurance Company. He also submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. The owner has allowed the passengers which exceeds the seating capacity. Thus, there is a violation of policy conditions. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeals. 11. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel to the parties. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12398 MFA No. 102144 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102145 of 2019 MFA No. 102146 of 2019 12. The points that would arise for consideration are regarding the liability and quantum of compensation. 13. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioners in a road traffic accident. The petitioners have produced a certified copy of the charge sheet marked as Ex.P6, which discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. I do not find any error in the findings recorded by the tribunal regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. I concur with the findings recorded by the tribunal in this regard. Reg. Liability: 14. The insurance company has filed a statement of objections contending that the driver has carried more than 10 passengers as against the permit and conditions of the policy and RTO has permitted to carry only 3 + 1 persons. Admittedly, the driver has carried more than 10 passengers, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12398 MFA No. 102144 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102145 of 2019 MFA No. 102146 of 2019 however, only 3 passengers who sustained grievous injuries have filed the claim petitions. There is no violation of policy conditions regarding the petitioners because there are only 3 claim petitions have been filed, and they cover the policy. The said aspect was not considered by the tribunal. It is also contended that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. 15. The insurance company has produced the DL particulars of the driver of the offending vehicle marked as Ex.R2, which discloses that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a LMV (NT) licence. The person who possesses the LMV licence can drive the transport vehicle, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of MUKUND DEWANGAN VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in 2017(14) SCC 663 and JAGADISH KUMAR SOOD VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 240 OF 2017. Admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a driving licence to drive the LMV vehicle and the said fact has not been denied by - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12398 MFA No. 102144 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102145 of 2019 MFA No. 102146 of 2019 the insurance company. On the other hand, the insurance company has produced Ex.R2. The tribunal committed an error, without considering the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of MUKUND DEWANGAN and JAGADISH KUMAR SOOD (referred to supra). 16. Since, as of the date of the accident, the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle against third party. Hence, the owner as well as insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. The Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim petitions against the insurance company. The Judgment and award passed by the tribunal dismissing the claim petitions against the insurance company is liable to be set aside. In view of the above discussion, the point of liability is answered accordingly. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12398 MFA No. 102144 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102145 of 2019 MFA No. 102146 of 2019 Reg. quantum of compensation in MFA No. 102144 of 2019: 17. It is contended that the petitioner was working as a coolie and doing the milk vending work and earning more than ₹10,000/-p.m. To substantiate the contention of the petitioner, the petitioner has not produced any proof of income. In the absence of income proof, this court assesses the notional income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. 18. The accident occurred in 2013. The notional income is taken at ₹7,000/-. The tribunal was justified in taking the notional income at ₹7,000/-. The petitioner examined the doctor as PW.4, who has opined that the petitioner has sustained a disability to the extent of 15%, whereas the tribunal took the disability at 3%. This court, considering the evidence of the doctor assesses the disability at 6%. The petitioner was about 40 years old as of the date of the accident. The multiplier applicable to her age - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12398 MFA No. 102144 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102145 of 2019 MFA No. 102146 of 2019 group is ‘15’. Thus, this court reassesses the compensation under the following heads. Sl. No. Heads of compensation Compensation awarded in Rs. by this Court 1 Pain and suffering 25,000/- 2 Medical expenses, Diet Nourishment and Attendant charges 8,750/- 3 Loss of income during laid up period 7,000/- 4 Loss of future income on account of permanent physical disability (7000X12X15x6%) 75,600/- 5 Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life 20,000/- Total : ₹1,36,350/- Compensation enhanced by: (Less: 136350-62050) ₹74,300/- 19. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of ₹1,36,350/- as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of ₹ 74,300/-. In MFA. No. 102145/2019: 20. The petitioner was about 48 years old at the time of the accident. The tribunal has taken notional income at ₹ 7,000/-, which is as per the chart issued by the KSLSA, as - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12398 MFA No. 102144 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102145 of 2019 MFA No. 102146 of 2019 the accident occurred in 2013. The petitioner examined the doctor as PW.4 and he assessed the disability at 15% to the left upper limb. The tribunal has assessed the disability at 3% which is on the lower side. This court assesses the disability at 6%. The multiplier applicable to her age group is ‘13’. 21. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to compensation under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads of compensation Compensation awarded in Rs. By this Court 1 Pain and suffering 25,000/- 2 Medical expenses 10,615/- 3 Diet Nourishment and Attendant charges 20,000/- 4 Loss of income during laid up period 7,000/- 5 Loss of future income on account of permanent physical disability (7000X12X13X6%) 65,520/- 6 Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life 25,000/- Total : 1,53,135/- Compensation enhanced by: (Less: 1,53,135-59,575 93,560/- - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12398 MFA No. 102144 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102145 of 2019 MFA No. 102146 of 2019 22. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of ₹1,53,135/- as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at ₹59,575/- Thus, the petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of ₹93,560/- In MFA No.102146/2019: 23. The petitioner was about 36 years old as of the date of the accident and the multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘15’. The tribunal was justified in assessing the notional income at ₹ 7,000/- as the accident occurred in 2013., The petitioner examined the doctor as PW.4, who assessed the disability at 20% to the left upper limb, however the tribunal has taken the disability at 4% which is on the lower side. 24. This court has taken the disability at 6% and reassesses the compensation under the following heads: - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12398 MFA No. 102144 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102145 of 2019 MFA No. 102146 of 2019 Sl. No. Heads of compensation Compensation awarded in Rs. By this Court 1 Pain and suffering 25,000/- 2 Medical expenses 8150/- 3 Diet Nourishment and Attendant charges 20,000/- 4 Loss of income during laid up period 7,000/- 4 Loss of future income on account of permanent physical disability 75,600/- (7000X12X15X6%) 5 Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life 25,000/- Total : 1,60,750/- Compensation enhanced by: (Less: 1,60,750 -74,050) 86,700/- 25. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of ₹1,60,750/- as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at ₹74,050/- Thus, the petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of ₹86,700/-. 26. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Miscellaneous First Appeals are allowed in part. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12398 MFA No. 102144 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102145 of 2019 MFA No. 102146 of 2019 ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal is modified. iii. The Petitioner/ Appellant in MFA No. 102144/2014 is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.74,300/-. The Petitioner/ Appellant in MFA No. 102145/2014 is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.93,560/-.The Petitioner/ Appellant in MFA No. 102146/2014 is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs. 86,700/-. iv. The claim petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed against the respondents i.e., the owner and the insurance company. v. The respondents in MFA Nos.102144/2019, 102145/2019 and 102146/2019 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and the insurance company is directed to pay the compensation amount with accrued interest @ 9% within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12398 MFA No. 102144 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102145 of 2019 MFA No. 102146 of 2019 vi. The appellants in all the appeals are not entitled to interest for the delayed period of 309 days. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31