- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26626 MFA No. 3302 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2830 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3302 OF 2014 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2830 OF 2014 (MV) IN MFA No. 3302/2014 BETWEEN: ROJOE T. J., S/O HOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.615, 3RD BLOCK, 5TH MAIN, BEL LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE - 97. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KHANIJA BHAVAN, 5TH FLOOR, WEST ENTRANCE, BANGALORE - 01. BY ITS MANAGER. 2. PRAVESH NEGI, S/O MOHAN SINGH NEGI, MAJOR, NO.2, SAROJAMMA BUILDING, RAMACHANDRA JALAHALLI, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26626 MFA No. 3302 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2830 of 2014 EAST, BANGALORE - 13. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAYA PHANEENDRA T. B. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A. N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DATED 12.01.2015 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.02.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1998/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & XXVI ACMM, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 2830/2014 BETWEEN: TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KHANIJA BHAVAN, 5TH FLOOR, WEST ENTRANCE, BANGALORE - 560 001. NOW REPRESENTED BY TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., #69, II FLOOR, J.P. & DEVI JAMBUKESHWAR ARCADE, MILLERS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052. POLICY ISSUED BY ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT PENINSULA CORPORATE PARK, NICHOLAS PIRAMAL TOWER, 9TH FLOOR, G.K. MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI - 400 013. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJAYA PHANEENDRA T. B. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A. N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26626 MFA No. 3302 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2830 of 2014 AND: 1. ROJOE T. J., S/O JOSEPH, NOW AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT #615, 3RD BLOCK, 5TH MAIN, BEL LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 097. 2. PRAVESH NEGI S/O MOHAN SINGH NEGI, MAJOR, R/O #2, SAROJAMMA BUILDING, RAMACHANDRA JALAHALLI EAST, BANGALORE - 560 013. ...RESPONDENTS (R1 - SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 11.02.2019 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.02.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1998/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, & XXVI ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,20,100/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26626 MFA No. 3302 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2830 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT Both these appeals arise out of Judgment and award dated 04.02.2014 passed by the learned Judge, Court of Small Causes and XXVI ACMM, MACT (SCCH-9), Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as `Tribunal' for short) in MVC No.1998/2011. 2. Since both the appeals arise out of common Judgment and award, these appeals are taken up together for disposal. 3. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, on 23.01.2011, at about 4.30 P.M., near Kethams Hospital, Vidyaranyapura, Bengaluru, while the claimant was carefully and cautiously crossing the road from south to north, the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration number KA-02-HK-4887 drove it in a rash and negligent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26626 MFA No. 3302 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2830 of 2014 manner and hit the claimant. As a result, claimant sustained compressed fracture L2 vertebra. He spent more than Rs.4,00,000/- towards medical expenses. He was aged 32 years and was working as a Software Engineer and operation Analyst, earning Rs.40,000/- per month. Due to injuries sustained in the accident he suffered permanent injuries. With these he prayed to pay compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-. 5. The respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the owner of motorcycle. Respondent No.2 was exparte, before Tribunal. Respondent No.1 filed written statement denying the contents of claim petition. Respondent No.1 also contended that rider of the motorcycle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Therefore it denied its liability to pay the compensation. It also contended that accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the claimant. With these reasons prayed to dismiss the claim petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26626 MFA No. 3302 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2830 of 2014 6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal had framed the necessary issues. 7. The Claimant to prove his case, examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and got marked 14 documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. Respondent No.1 examined one witness as RW-1 and marked 5 documents as per Ex.R1 to Ex.R5. 8. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the materials available on record awarded the following amount of compensation: SL.NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/- 2. Medical expenses (including Ex.P11) Rs. 2,198/- 3. Food, conveyance and other expenses during treatment period Rs. 20,000/- 4. Loss of pay on medical leave period (Rs.36,973/- p.m.x4 months) Rs. 1,47,892/- Total Rs. 2,20,090/- Rounded off to Rs. 2,20,100/- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26626 MFA No. 3302 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2830 of 2014 9. The claimant challenged the said award on the ground of inadequacy of the amount of compensation awarded and respondent-insurer challenged the said award on the ground that the rider of the motorcycle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and therefore it is not liable to indemnify and that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the claimant, which was not considered by the Tribunal. On these grounds prayed to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.1. 10. I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the records. 11. Fact of the accident is not seriously disputed. Though Respondent No.1 contended that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the claimant, no eyewitness to the incident was examined. RW-1 is not an eyewitness to the accident. Based on the spot map and the mahazar, it can be inferred that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26626 MFA No. 3302 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2830 of 2014 accident occurred due to the negligence of the motorcycle rider. Furthermore, during the cross-examination of PW-1, nothing was elicited to suggest that he was crossing the road in an improper or careless manner. Hence, said contention of the insurer is not tenable. 12 PW-1, in his evidence, stated the details of the injuries he had sustained and the resulting disability. He had also examined the doctor who had treated him. Based on the medical records, the doctor had assessed the claimant’s disability at 24% to the whole body and had recorded restrictions in the movement of a specific limb. In cross-examination, the doctor admitted that the fractures had united but denied the suggestion that, due to the union of the fractures, the claimant was not suffering or did not have any disability. He had also denied the suggestion that the claimant was suffering from only one or two minor permanent disabilities. The claimant had produced medical records, receipts, inpatient records, X- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26626 MFA No. 3302 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2830 of 2014 ray and scanning reports, all of which had been considered by the Tribunal while assessing compensation. 13. Considering the nature of the injuries, the claimant’s occupation, and the evidence of PW-2, it was evident that the claimant had suffered severe pain and agony. As per PW-2’s testimony, the claimant is still suffering from pain as a result of the said accident. Undisputedly the claimant continued his employment even after the accident. Hence Tribunal rightly had not awarded any compensation under the head ‘loss of future earning capacity’ due to permanent disability. However, it is to be noted that the claimant has lost access to certain amenities enjoyed by a healthy individual. He had been a young person, aged about 32 years at the time of the accident. With advancing age, the fracture and residual pain could lead to further complications. Consequently, he might not be able to perform certain tasks that a healthy person can perform, this has not been considered by the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26626 MFA No. 3302 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2830 of 2014 Tribunal. On reassessing the materials on record, the claimant is entitled for following compensation: SL.NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1. Pain and Suffering Rs. 75,000/- 2. Attendant charges, special diet, conveyance charges etc., Rs. 35,000/- 3. Loss of income during laid up period due to availment of leave Rs.1,47,892/- 4. Loss of amenities and future unhappiness Rs.1,25,000/- Total Rs.3,82,892/- Less compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.2,20,090/- Enhancement Rs.1,62,802/- Rounded off to Rs.1,63,000/- 13. Claimant is entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation amount at the rate of 6% p.a. 14. Respondent No.1 also contended that the rider of the motorcycle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, but only a learner’s licence. Furthermore, there was no pillion rider accompanying him who held a valid driving licence to guide the rider, as required under the conditions of the learner’s licence. In view of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26626 MFA No. 3302 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2830 of 2014 same, it was argued that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The said submission of the insurer is tenable. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the Judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs Swaran Singh and others reported in AIR (2004) 3 SCC 297 wherein at paragraph 88 it is observed as under: "88. Section 10 of the Act provides for forms and contents of licences to drive. The licence has to be granted in the prescribed form. Thus, a licence to drive a light motor vehicle would entitle the holder there to drive the vehicle falling within that class or description." and submits that the rider of the motorcycle was having valid and effective driving licence and in the alternate he also contended that if the driver was not having a valid licence then the insurer shall be directed to pay the amount and recover it from the owner of the vehicle as held in the above said case. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26626 MFA No. 3302 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2830 of 2014 15. Undisputedly, the rider of the motorcycle was holding learner's licence and no persons having knowledge of riding two wheeler and holding a valid licence was sitting as a pillion rider. Therefore, there is a violation of condition of issuing learner's licence. In view of the same, it is to be believed that rider of the motorcycle was not holding valid and effective driving licence. Admittedly the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No.1 and the policy was in force. In view of this, it is not a breach of fundamental conditions of the policy. Respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation to the third party and recover it from the owner of the vehicle. 16. For the aforesaid discussion I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1. Both the appeals are allowed in part. 2. The impugned Judgment and award dated 04.02.2014 passed by the learned Judge, Court of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26626 MFA No. 3302 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2830 of 2014 Small Causes and XXVI ACMM, MACT (SCCH-9), Bengaluru (SCCH-9), in MVC No.1998/2011 is modified. Claimant is entitled to enhancement of Rs.1,63,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation. 3. The respondent No.1 shall pay the compensation to the claimant and it is at liberty to recover it from the owner of the vehicle in an appropriate proceedings, on the basis of this award. 4. The respondent No.1 shall deposit the said amount within six weeks from the date of the award. The accident is of the year 2011 and claimant is a Software Engineer. Considering the same, entire amount of enhanced compensation shall be released in favour of the claimant on due identification. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26626 MFA No. 3302 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 2830 of 2014 Send back the trial Court records along with the copy of the Judgment to Tribunal. Amount deposited by the insurer, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT:PH