- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13046 MFA No. 103878 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103878 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. SHEKHAPPA S/O SHIVABASAPPA MOTEBENNUR, AGE: 66 YEARS BETEL LEAF BUSINESS R/O: KARADIYAVAR ONI, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VISHWANATH L. HEGDE, ADV FOR SRI. M.H. PATIL, ADV) AND: 1. RAJESH S/O GANESHAPPA BASAVANAYAK AGE:29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: K H B COLONY, DOLPHIN SCHOOL, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, A M ARCADE, C.G HOSPITAL ROAD, DAVANAGERE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADV FOR R2, R1-DISMISSED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16.09.2015, PASSED IN MVC NO.206/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER : MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.27 11:23:33 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13046 MFA No. 103878 of 2015 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This Appeal is filed by the petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and liability vide judgment and award dated 16.09.2015 passed in MVC No.206/2014 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Ranebennur. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. On 28.09.2013, the petitioner was engaged in his business and was proceeding towards a tea stall, at that time the driver of the Auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-27/A-5207 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the petitioner, As a result, the petitioner has sustained the grievous injuries. The petitioner filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the road - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13046 MFA No. 103878 of 2015 traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 4. The owner of the vehicle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident and the vehicle was duly insured with Insurance Company. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the offending vehicle. 5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that the driver of the offender vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. It is contended that the vehicle was driven by the driver who did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. There is a violation of policy conditions and accordingly, prays to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13046 MFA No. 103878 of 2015 dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 7. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, examined the doctor as PW.2, and marked 11 documents as Ex.P1 to P11. In rebuttal, the Insurance Company examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2, and marked five documents as Exhibit R1 to R5. 8. The tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs vide judgment dated 16.09.2015 and awarded a compensation of ₹.1,35,400/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the petition till realization of the amount. The tribunal directed the owner of the Auto rickshaw to deposit the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13046 MFA No. 103878 of 2015 compensation amount, and dismissed the claim petition against the insurance company. 9. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, filed this appeal. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel for the insurance company. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the driver had a LMV license as of the date of the accident and he is competent to drive the transport vehicle. To buttress his arguments he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported (2017) 14 SCC 663, and also the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of JAGDISH KUMAR SOOD VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS reported in CIVIL APPEAL NO.240/2017. He also submits that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13046 MFA No. 103878 of 2015 the petitioner, To prove the disability examined the doctor as PW.2. He opined that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 45%, wherein, the tribunal has taken the disability at 12% which is on a lower side. He also submits that the accident occurred in 2013. The tribunal has taken the notional income at ₹4,500/-. The tribunal should have taken the income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority i.e., ₹7,000/-. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under the other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 12. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the driver of the Auto rickshaw did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. Thus, there is a violation of policy conditions, and the tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition against the insurance - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13046 MFA No. 103878 of 2015 company. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The points that would arise for consideration are regarding the liability, and quantum of compensation. 15. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the petitioner having suffered injuries in the road traffic accident. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto rickshaw. To prove the same the petitioner has produced a charge sheet marked as Ex.P7. The tribunal was justified in answering Issue No.1 in the affirmative. I concur with the findings recorded by the tribunal on issue No.1. Regarding liability: 16. The Insurance company has taken a specific defence in the statement of objection that the driver of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13046 MFA No. 103878 of 2015 offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. The insurance company has produced Ex.R4 which discloses that the driver possessed a LMV licence. As of the date of accident, the driver was possessing a LMV licence and there is no bar to drive the transport vehicle in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN’S (referred to supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the person possessing a licence to drive the light motor vehicle is competent to drive the transport vehicle, and further no endorsement is required to drive the transport vehicle. Considering the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of MUKUND DEWANGAN and JAGDISH KUMAR SOOD (referred to supra), the judgment passed by the tribunal is contrary to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases referred supra. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13046 MFA No. 103878 of 2015 17. The driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident and he was competent to drive the transport vehicle. Therefore, the insurance company is liable to indemnify against the third party. This Court is of the opinion that the owner and insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. In view of the above discussion, I answer the point on liability accordingly. Reg. Quantum of compensation: 18. The petitioner was aged 65 years old as of the date of the accident, the accident occurred on 28.09.2013. The petitioner to substantiate the monthly income has not produced any proof of income. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. This Court has assesses the notional income at ₹7,000/- as per the scheudule. The petitioner, in to prove the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13046 MFA No. 103878 of 2015 permanent disability examined the doctor as PW.2. He had deposed that he had examined the petitioner clinically and radiologically and issued the disability certificate marked as Ex.P10, which discloses that the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 45% to left ankle region. Admittedly, he is not a treated doctor. The tribunal has rightly assessed the disability at 12% which is just and proper and do not call for interference, to the extent of disability assessed by the Tribunal. Considering the evidence of PW.2, and the medical records, this court re-assess the compensation under the following heads: Compensation awarded in Rs. Sl. No. Heads of compensation By the Tribunal By this Court 1 Pain and suffering 25,000/- 30,000/- 2 Medical expenses 42,000/- 42,000/- 3 Diet Nourishment and Attendant charges 3,000/- 15,000/- 3 Loss of income during laid up period 10,000/- 21,000/- (7,000 x 3) 4 Loss of future income on account of permanent physical disability 45,360/- 70,560/- (7,000x12x7x 12%) - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13046 MFA No. 103878 of 2015 5 Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life 10,000/- 25,000/- Total : 1,35,400/- 2,03,560/- Compensation enhanced by: 68,200/- 20. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of ₹2,03,560/- as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at ₹1,35,400/-. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of ₹.68,200/- in view of the same, the point on question is answered accordingly. 21. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER I. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. II. The impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal is modified. The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of ₹68,200/-, in addition to the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest at the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13046 MFA No. 103878 of 2015 rate of 7% from the date of the petition till its realization. III. The respondent i.e the owner and insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. IV. The Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with the accrued interest within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V. The amount in deposit, if any, and the trial Court records be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13