- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10737 MFA No. 24215 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24215 OF 2013 (MV-) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SURESH TUKARAM KADAM AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: MEDICAL PRACTITIONER, R/O: RAJGOLI KH, TALUK: CHANDGAD, DIST: KOLHAPUR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADV) AND: 1. SHRI. SARGAR GOPAL YARMALKAR AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. VITHAL GALLI, AVACHARATTI, POST: YALLUR, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., 1663, BHAVANI CHANBERS, 2ND FLOOR, RAMALINGKHIND GALLI, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.02.2012, PASSED IN MVC NO.1022/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.10 12:25:16 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10737 MFA No. 24215 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 18.02.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.1022/2010 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Belagavi. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. On 14.01.2009 the claimant along with other passengers, was proceeding was proceeding in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-22/9489. At that time, the driver of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-22/B-1229 came in a high speed in a and rash and negligent manner, collided with the auto rickshaw which resulted in the accident. Due to the impact, the claimant and other passengers were sustained grievous injuries. Immediately they were shifted to the District Hospital, Belagavi. The claimant spent huge amount of money - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10737 MFA No. 24215 of 2013 towards medical and other expenses. Thus, he filed a claim petition claiming compensation. 4. The owner of the goods vehicle bearing No.KA- 22/B-1229 filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the driver of the goods vehicle was insured with the insurance company and the driver of the goods vehicle had a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of accident. Hence, it is submitted that, in case if the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled for compensation, the liability to pay the compensation be saddled on the insurance company. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition as against the owner of the goods vehicle. 5. The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the driver of goods vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10737 MFA No. 24215 of 2013 of the date of accident. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company. 6. Other injured persons also filed separate claim petitions seeking compensation. The Tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties, clubbed all the claim petitions and framed the common issues. 7. The claimant, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined the doctor as PW-5 and marked 13 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-13. In rebuttal, the insurance company examined its official as RW-1 and marked 4 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-4. 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and held that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,14,100/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation and directed the owner of the goods vehicle to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10737 MFA No. 24215 of 2013 order. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, awarded by the Tribunal, filed this appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the claimant and learned counsel for the insurance company. 10. Learned counsel for claimant submits that the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. To prove the disability, he has examined the doctor as PW-3 who opined that the claimant has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 25% to the whole body wherein the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 6%. Hence, he submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Further, it is contended that the Tribunal ought to have ordered for pay and recovery, against the insurance company but, it has wrongly dismissed the claim petition against it. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10737 MFA No. 24215 of 2013 11. Per contra, learned counsel for insurance company submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing a valid driving licence as of the date of the accident but as of the date of accident it was expired and subsequently after five months, driver of the offending vehicle was renewed the licence. Hence, he submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was disqualified from driving the vehicle. He submits that there is a fundamental breach of policy conditions and the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle as he entrusted the vehicle to an unauthorized person who did not possess any valid and effective driving licence as of the date of accident. He also submits that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition against the insurance company. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10737 MFA No. 24215 of 2013 13. The points that would arise for consideration are about the liability and the quantum of compensation. Regarding liability: 14. There is no dispute that the claimant met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. The claimant has produced the certified copy of the charge sheet marked as Ex.P-7 which discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The insurance company has taken a specific defence in the statement of objections that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of accident. Admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle filed an application for renewal of licence within five years as contemplated under Section 15(4) of the M.V. Act. The authority cannot refuse the renewal of licence if the prescribed fee had been paid and if an application had been made beyond the period of five years, the applicant - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10737 MFA No. 24215 of 2013 was required to undergo a test to prove that he is competent to drive the motor vehicle. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.G. Srinivasamurthy v/s Habib Khateem reported in 2002 ACJ 557, held that with the application for renewal is made within 30 days after the date of expiry of license, the same shall be renewed from the date of its expiry. In other words if a person is having an effective Driving License he cannot be said to be disqualified from obtaining such license. Hence, when the law allow a person to obtain a licence to drive a motor vehicle he could not have lost his ability to drive, as on the date of expiry of the valid driving license, he still retain the ability to qualify to drive the motor vehicle. The said aspect was not considered by the Tribunal and further insurance company itself has filed the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle, marked as Ex.R-4 which discloses that after the five months from the date of accident, the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was renewed. Thus, the driver has not lost and he was - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10737 MFA No. 24215 of 2013 not disqualified from the driving of the motor vehicle. He possesses necessary competency to drive the vehicle. The insurance company cannot contend that there was a breach of policy conditions and their liability stood exonerated. In that view of the matter, the fastening of the liability on the owner of the vehicle is incorrect. Thus, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the owner of the goods vehicle is liable to pay the compensation is liable to be set aside. In view of the above discussion the point on liability is answered accordingly. Regarding quantum of compensation: 15. The claimant has contended that he was a medical practitioner and was earning Rs.18,000/- p.m. and due to the accident, he is unable to move from his house. To prove the disability, he examined the doctor as PW-3 who has opined that the claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 25% to the lower limb. The Tribunal has assessed the disability at 6% to the whole body, which is just and proper. Though the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10737 MFA No. 24215 of 2013 claimant has contended that he was earning Rs.18,000/- p.m., he has not produced any income proof. In the absence of income proof, the notional income has to be assessed as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident is of the year 2009. The notional income should be taken at Rs.5,000/- p.m. The claimant was aged about 37 years. 40% future prospects is to be added to the income in view of the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others1. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 15 to the age group of the claimant. Accordingly, the loss of earning capacity is worked out as follows: Rs.5,000+2,000 (40% of Rs.5,000/-) = Rs.7,000/- Rs.7,000 x 12 x 15 x 6% = 75,600/- 16. Thus, this Court on re-assessment of entire evidence on record, awards the following compensation : 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10737 MFA No. 24215 of 2013 Sl. No. Heads of compensation Compensation awarded in Rs. By the Tribunal By this Court 1 Pain and suffering 20,000/- 50,000/- 2 Medical and ancillary expenses 2,000/- 2,000/- 3 Loss of income during the treatment 13,500/- 7,000/- 4 Loss of future earning capacity due to disability 48,600/- 75,600/- 5 Loss of amenities and future unhappiness 30,000/- 40,000/- Total : 1,14,100/- 1,74,600/- Compensation enhanced by: 60,500/- 17. Thus, in all the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,74,600/-. The enhancement of compensation is Rs.60,500/-. 18. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 18.02.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.1022/2010 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Belagavi is modified. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10737 MFA No. 24215 of 2013 (iii) The liability to pay the compensation fastened by the Tribunal on the owner of the goods vehicle is set aside. The owner and insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pass the compensation. The insurance company is directed to pay the compensation amount with accrued interest to the claimant. (iv) The claimant is entitled to on enhanced compensation of Rs.60,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. (v) The respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (vi) The office is directed to transmit the records. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17