- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:589 MFA No. 100693 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100693 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN: SHIVAPPA S/O. DYAMAPPA PUJAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HADARAMAGGI, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL. …APPELLANT (BY SRI M. AMARE GOUDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAJESAB S/O. MABUSAB MUJAVAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF THE MAXI CAB BEARING NO.KA-29/1688, R/O: DEVARAJ ARAS COLONY, NANDINAGAR, KOPPAL. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., S.B.I UPSTAIRS, PRIYADRASHINI HOTEL BESIDES, STATION ROAD, HOSPET. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR M.HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (THROUGH V/C)) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.416/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, KOPPAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:589 MFA No. 100693 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) Though this appeal is listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 01.08.2014, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Koppal, in MVC No.416/2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), seeking enhancement of compensation as well as liability fastened on owner of the Maxi Cab/offending vehicle. 3. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 18.10.2010, the claimant was proceeding to his village in a Maxi Cab bearing registration No.KA-29/1688 from Koppal. When the vehicle reached on Koppal-Chikka Sindogi road, about 2 Km from Chikka Sindhogi at about 7-00 pm, driver of the Maxi Cab drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle, due to which, the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:589 MFA No. 100693 of 2015 vehicle turned turtle, resulting in injuries to the claimant. Hence, he filed claim petition. 4. The disputed question is whether the Insurance Company is liable or not. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the driver of Maxi Cab was holding driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (non transport), but the vehicle is a Light Motor Vehicle (transport). Therefore, submitted that a person who is holding driving licence to drive LMV (non transport), is also competent to drive LMV (transport). Therefore, it is hereby held that the issue involved in the present appeal is no more res-integra in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 Supreme Court Cases 663, according to which, a person who is holding driving licence to drive the LMV (non transport) can also drive the LMV (transport). - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:589 MFA No. 100693 of 2015 6. Further, the learned counsel submits that the award of compensation by the Tribunal under all heads is on lower side and seeks to enhance the same. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2- Insurance Company submitted that the vehicle is a Maxi Cab and permitted seating capacity is 12+1 passengers. But as per complaint and other documents, it is proved that there were 25 passengers travelling in the Maxi Cab. Therefore, carrying of excess passengers in the Maxi Cab is a fundamental factor for causing the accident in question. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in exonerating the Insurance Company by fastening liability on the owner of the Maxi Cab. 8. The vehicle i.e., Maxi Cab having seating capacity of 12+1 passengers, but as per Police documentary evidence, it is proved that there were 25 passengers travelling in the Maxi Cab. Whether carrying of excess passengers is a fundamental breach to exonerate the Insurance Company is the question to be considered. Just because there were 25 passengers travelled in a Maxi Cab, it - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:589 MFA No. 100693 of 2015 cannot always be made ground to say, that was the cause for the accident. Therefore, this is not a ground to exonerate the Insurance Company. Hence, the Tribunal is not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company on the reason that there were excess passengers travelled in the Maxi Cab. Though it may be violation of condition of policy and also for taking action against the owner of the Maxi Cab, but carrying of excess passengers in the Maxi Cab is not a fundamental factor for causing accident. Taking any action permitting to carry excess passenger is different, than what is the fundamental factor for causing accident. 9. Therefore, on this ground exonerating the Insurance Company from paying compensation is not correct and also issue involved is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (referred supra), insofar as driver was holding driving licence to drive LMV (non transport), but the vehicle is LMV (transport). Hence, the liability is modified holding that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:589 MFA No. 100693 of 2015 10. In the present case, from the medical evidence on record it is proved that the claimant had suffered the following injuries. “Fracture of T12, L2 and L4 Vertebral bodies and Tenderness of left rib cage, Deformity over the back.” 11. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Pain and suffering. 10,000/- 2. Loss of future income 25,200/- 3. Loss of amenities, nutrition, diet and attendant charges 600/- Total: 35,800/- 12. The claimant was working as an agriculturist and earning Rs.5,500/- per month (notional income) as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, as on the date of accident. Considering the fact that the claimant was inpatient for a period of 2 days in the hospital, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the aforesaid heads is on lower side. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:589 MFA No. 100693 of 2015 13. Considering the injuries sustained, a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.8,000/- towards Incidental expenses i.e., nutrition, diet and attendant charges and Rs.11,000/- (5,500 X 2) towards loss of income during laid up period for a period of two months since the claimant had suffered grievous injuries. 14. The doctor has stated that the claimant had suffered 30-35% physical disability to the whole body. Therefore, considering the evidence of the doctor, 12% functional disability is taken into consideration as the claimant had suffered Fracture of T12, L2 and L4 Vertebral bodies and Tenderness of left rib cage, Deformity over the back. 15. The accident is caused in the year 2010. Therefore, notional income of Rs.5,500/- per month is taken into consideration, which is recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority. The claimant was aged 40 years at the time of accident. Therefore appropriate - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:589 MFA No. 100693 of 2015 applicable multiplier is 15. Hence, loss of future income due to disability is hereby reassessed as Rs.1,18,800/- (Rs.5,500/- x 12% x 15 x 12). 16. Thus, the claimant is entitled for total compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Loss of future income due to disability 1,18,800/- 2. Pain and sufferings. 25,000/- 3. Medical expenses. 5,000/- 4. Loss of amenities. 5,000/- 5. Loss of income during laid up period. 11,000/- 6. Incidental charges like attendant charges, food, nourishment, conveyance, etc., 8,000/- Total: 1,72,800/- 17. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,72,800/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization, as against Rs.35,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 18. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:589 MFA No. 100693 of 2015 ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 01.08.2014, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Koppal, in MVC No.416/2012 stands modified. iii) The claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,72,800/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, as against Rs.35,900/- awarded by the tribunal. iv) The insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. v) Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:589 MFA No. 100693 of 2015 vi) No order as to costs. vii) Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15