- 1 - MFA No.6278 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6278/2015(MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. EKANTHAPPA @ K.N. EKANTHAPPA, SON OF LATE NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF KODIHALLI VILLAGE, HOSDURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT NOW R/AT NO.115, BEHIND VGS HOUSE, HLK ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577 501. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MUJTABA .H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SHIVAMURTHY .G, SON OF SRI. GAVIRANGAPPA, R/O NO.258A, HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., LAKSHMI BAZAR ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1-SERVED) THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:23.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.233/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL R - 2 - MFA No.6278 of 2015 SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT-5, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 15.09.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 23.04.2015 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-V, Chitradurga, in MVC No.233 of 2014. 2. The injured claimant met with an accident on 05.11.2013 and sustained injuries. Therefore, he filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest rate of 12% per annum. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted Rs.2,10,500/- with interest rate of 7.5% per annum from date of petition till the date of deposit. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant preferred this appeal mainly contending that he sustained various injuries in the accident and immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital at Hosadurga and from there to S.S. Hospital, where he was admitted as inpatient for 15 days. He was discharged - 3 - MFA No.6278 of 2015 with an advice for follow-up treatment once in 15 days as an outpatient and advised bed rest for one year. He was again admitted on 21.02.2014 and undergone surgery for removal of the rods and screws to fractures, and discharged on 24.02.2014. He spent Rs.2,00,000/- for medical expenses. The Tribunal erred in granting meagre compensation and therefore, requested for enhancement of compensation. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that there is no prima facie evidence to show that the son of the first respondent-Shivamurthy G. was driving the vehicle and caused accident. One Ranganath S/o Hanumanthappa was involved in the accident. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against him. The insurance company did not challenge the charge sheet. 5. It is contended that the claimant was aged 40 years, working as an agriculturist and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. But the tribunal wrongly taken his age as 50 years and taken income as Rs.10,000/- per month. P.W.2 is an Orthopedic Surgeon and he assessed the disability as 35.57% to the right lower limb. But no amount is granted under the heads 'loss of amenities' and 'loss of income during the laid up period'. A - 4 - MFA No.6278 of 2015 meagre amount is granted for travel, conveyance and other expenses. After the accident, the claimant became dependant on others, but no amount is granted for disappointment, happiness and discomfort. Therefore, requested for enhancement in compensation. 6. In the statement of objections filed by the respondent-insurance company, it is stated that respondent No.1 -owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA-16-X-5245 remained absent, even after service of notice, and therefore, set ex- parte. Exhibit R7 was the written statement of respondent No.1. It was written by one Hanumanthappa, the friend of respondent No.1 and the same was signed by respondent No.1. In Exhibit R1-MLC extract, it was mentioned that injuries sustained by him were due to the fall from bike. Though the son of respondent No.1 was riding the vehicle at the time of the accident, the charge sheet was wrongly filed against Ranganath S/o Hanumanthappa. Even P.W.1 admitted in the cross examination that the son of respondent No.1 was riding the motorcycle. As the insured not challenged the charge sheet, the insurance company is not liable to pay and recover. - 5 - MFA No.6278 of 2015 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant relied upon a citation reported in the United India Company Ltd. Vs. P.S. Rajya (2009) in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the insurer cannot challenge the charge sheet filed against the insured as he was not a party to the litigation. The translated copies of the relevant documents are filed. 8. The Insurance company mainly relied upon the letter addressed by respondent No.1 to the Divisional Manager in which he stated that Motorcycle bearing No.KA-16-X-5245 was in his name. His son Ranganath was riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident. He along with another one Chandrasekhar were on the back seat and all of them sustained injuries. Police impounded his motorcycle and he took the possession of the same after paying the fee. The said letter was written by one Hanumanthappa and he signed on the same. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that though notice was served on respondent No.1, he did not turn up and he was not examined by the insurance company. They have not even examined the said Divisional Manager, who received the letter, or Hanumanthappa, who has written the letter on the directions of respondent No.1. As such, the letter - 6 - MFA No.6278 of 2015 cannot be relied upon by the insurance company. In the cross examination of the petitioner, it was stated that Exhibit R.7 was given by the investigation officer and the said investigation officer also was not examined before the Court. The Administrative Officer of the insurance company was examined as R.W.1 and he has stated that the rider of the motor cycle with gear was driving it without obtaining licence from the licencing authority. As such, since the rider had no driving licence, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. Even respondent No.1 was aware that the rider of the vehicle had no driving licence. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamanna and Another Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in (2018)9 SCC 650 wherein the Apex Court has held that, when the driver has no driving licence, and insurance policy is violated, the Insurance company can pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner, as per the procedure laid down in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanjappan reported in (2004)13 SCC 224. - 7 - MFA No.6278 of 2015 11. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Swaran Singh reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the onus is on the insurance company to prove that the driver had no valid driving licence and there was breach of policy conditions. Pay and recover can be ordered in case of third party. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further examined liability of the insurance company in cases of breach of conditions of the policy, due to disqualifications of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver and held that in case of third party risks, the insurer has to indemnify the compensation amount to the third party and the insurance company may recover the same from the insured, when there was no liability on them. As such, it was referred to a two Judge Bench in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Parvathneni reported in (2018)9 SCC 657 under Article 142 of the Constitution. But the said case was disposed of, keeping the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate case. As such, Swaran Singh’s case, cited supra, was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut reported in (2007)3 SCC 700, wherein the Insurance - 8 - MFA No.6278 of 2015 Company was directed to pay compensation and recover the same from the owner. 12. Learned counsel for respondent Insurance Company has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Priyanka @ Pramila Vs. Sanwar Khan and Others in MFA No.201982 of 2019 and connected matter decided on 25.04.2024, wherein the Divisions Bench of this Court has considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu and Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the insurance company is entitled to take a defence that the offending vehicle was driven by an unauthorized person or the person driving the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. The onus would shift on the Insurance Company, only after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic fact within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorized by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving licence at the relevant time. It is further held that even if the insurer succeeds in establishing its defence, the Tribunal or the Court can direct the Insurance Company to pay the - 9 - MFA No.6278 of 2015 award amount to the claimant and in turn, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 13. The learned counsel for insurance company also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hans Raj Vs. Oriental insurance Company Limited and Another in SLP (C) No.3511/2020 decided on 20.08.2024, wherein it was held that the guidelines issued by the State Legal Services Authority is not binding on this Court to determine just and fair compensation. Courts are at liberty to decide the amount of compensation, based on the evidence on record. 14. Admittedly, the charge sheet was filed against Ranganath son of Hanumanthappa, but not against Ranganath, the son of Shivamurthy (respondent No.1). The Insurance company mainly relied upon letter (Exhibit R.7) written through one Hanumanthappa by respondent No.1 to the Divisional Officer. But it was not established by examining any of the relevant witnesses. Therefore, the argument of the insurance company that it is not liable to pay compensation, cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the driver against whom the charge - 10 - MFA No.6278 of 2015 sheet is filed is having driving licence. Therefore, the insurance company cannot be exonerated from paying the liability. 15. The petitioner sustained the following injuries as per wound certificate at Exhibit P.5. “1. Incised wound on head C. shape on left side measuring 10X4 cm. 2. Incised wound on head right side 3X1 cm. 3. Pain and swelling tenderness of right knee joint. 4. Abrasion on right foot 3X2 cm.” 16. Out of the above injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, injuries 1, 2 and 4 are simple injuries and injury No.3 is grievous injury. Exhibit P.8 is the discharge summary which shows that the claimant was admitted as inpatient from 06.11.2013 to 19.11.2013. Exhibit P.9 is the disability certificate, in which the disability to the lower limb was assessed as 35.57%. The Tribunal has considered one third of 35.57% as 12% and therefore, it needs no interference. In the discharge summary, the age of the petitioner is shown as 58 years, but in the disability certificate, it is shown as 51 years. In the petition, the age is shown as 40 years. But the Tribunal has considered his age as 50 years and taken the multiplier as - 11 - MFA No.6278 of 2015 13. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal. 17. The petitioner has stated that he was doing agricultural work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He filed Exhibits P.55 to P.58 (4 RTC extracts), but he has failed to prove his income. He met with an accident in the year 2013 and the notional income is to be taken as per the guidelines of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority which is shown as Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore, the loss of the future income comes to Rs.1,49,760/- (8,000x12x13x12%). The Tribunal has granted Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.91,200/- for medical expenses, which is just and reasonable and this court finds no reason to interfere with the same. This Court grants Rs.20,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.30,000/- for conveyance charges, transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.3,15,960/- as against Rs.2,10,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. 18. The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is modified as under: - 12 - MFA No.6278 of 2015 Heads Amount in Rs. 1. Loss of the future income 1,49,760/- 2. Pain and Suffering 25,000/- 3. Medical expenses 91,200/- 4. Loss of amenities 20,000/- 5. Transportation, Conveyance charges extra nourishment and attendant charges 30,000/- Total 3,15,960/- 19. In the result, the following order is passed: (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The claimant is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.3,15,960/- with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation. (iii) Respondent No.2-insurance company is directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount along with interest within one month from the date of this order. (iv) On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount along with interest accrued thereon. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS