- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4149 MFA No. 23783 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MFA NO. 23783 OF 2012 (MV) BETWEEN: SMT. ADIVEVVA @ ADIVEMMA W/O. VEERESHAPPA HOSALLI, AGE 49 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. ABBIGERI,TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. IBRAHIM S/O. MAKTHUMSAB AVARADI, AGE MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. KOTUMOCHAGI, TQ & DIST: GADAG. 2. IRAPPA S/O. K. SHIVASHIMPI, AGE MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER & AGRIL., R/O. KOTUMOCHAGI, TQ & DIST: GADAG. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., NO.25, SHANKARA YARAYAN BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, M. G. ROAD, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. R. KUPPELUR, ADV. FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 & R2 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD: 30-08-2011 PASSED IN MVC.NO.09/2009 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, RON, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4149 MFA No. 23783 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation and also a direction to the respondent - Insurer to pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 2. For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: It is the case of the appellant – claimant that on 24.06.2009 at about 9:30 p.m., he met with an accident on Kotumuchagi – Abbigeri Road, near Nagen Halla, due to the rash and negligent driving of the tam-tam Auto- rickshaw (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”) bearing registration No.KA-29/6780 by its driver. As a result, the petitioner sustained both simple as well as grievous injuries. Consequently, he sought compensation of Rs.4,30,000/-. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4149 MFA No. 23783 of 2012 4. Respondent No.1 was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, respondent No.2 was the owner, and respondent No.3 was the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not prosecute the case, while respondent No.3 filed a written statement denying the contentions of the claimant. The insurer contends that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and on this ground sought dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its determination: “1) Whether the petitioner proves that, on 24.06.2007 at about 9:30 p.m. on account of actionable negligence on the part of the driver of tam-tam vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA- 29/6780 the accident was occurred and the petitioner sustained injuries? - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4149 MFA No. 23783 of 2012 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? If so, at what rate and from whom? 3) What order or award? 6. To prove the case, the claimant got examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16 and closed the evidence. The respondents did not adduce any oral and documentary evidence on their behalf. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the entire evidence available on record, by the impugned judgment and award, partly allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.1,20,200/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of its deposit. Further, the Tribunal directed respondent No.2 (owner) to pay the said compensation and exonerated respondent No.3 (insurer) from its liability on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not hold a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4149 MFA No. 23783 of 2012 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant are not in dispute. He submits that claimant was earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. working as a coolie. However, the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the claimant at only Rs.3,000/- p.m. which is on lower side. According to the income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA), the notional income for the relevant period could be fixed at Rs.4,000/- p.m. He further submits that the amounts of compensation awarded under other heads is also inadequate and seeks enhancement. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and on that ground, the Tribunal directed the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4149 MFA No. 23783 of 2012 owner of the offending vehicle to pay the entire compensation and exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to pay the compensation. He further submits that, in the very same accident one Smt. Hajima @ Jaithunbi had also sustained injuries. She had also filed the claim petition claiming compensation. The said petition came to be allowed by the Tribunal and in that case also the owner of the Autorickshaw was made liable to pay the compensation. The petitioner in that claim petition also challenged the said award before this Court in MFA No.23784/2012 (MV). The Coordinate Bench of this Court, by its judgment dated 23rd August 2021 allowed the appeal and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Same principle could be considered in the present case. With these reasons prayed to allow the appeal. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – Insurer supported the impugned judgment and award and further submitted that the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4149 MFA No. 23783 of 2012 amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the liability imposed on the owner of the offending vehicle are proper and it does not call for any interference by this Court. 12. The facts of the accident and the claimant sustained injuries in the said accident are not in dispute. The only question to be determined is whether the Tribunal has awarded inadequate compensation? 13. PW1 in his evidence has stated that he was earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. Admittedly there is no supporting materials to prove the said income. Therefore, notional income of the claimant is to be assessed. According to the chart of income prepared by the KSLSA, the notional income of a victim in an accident during the year 2007 could be considered as Rs.4,000/- p.m. and the same could be applied to the facts of the present case. 14. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under the head pain and suffering Rs.15,000/-, even though the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4149 MFA No. 23783 of 2012 claimant had sustained the fracture of right zygotic arch bone. Considering the nature of injuries as well as the disability stated by the Doctor, the amount of compensation awarded under the head pain and suffering is on the lower side. Similarly, the amount of compensation awarded towards medical expenses, attendant charges, nursing, extra nourishment, conveyance and loss of income during laid up period and loss of amenities are also on the lower side, which needs to be enhanced. 15. The income of the claimant is taken at Rs.4,000/- p.m., the disability assessed by the Tribunal is 15%, which is not challenged by the respondents, and the appropriate multiplier applicable is 13. Therefore, the compensation for which the claimant is entitled under the head loss of future earnings needs recalculation; that would be Rs.93,600/- (Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 13 x 15%), which is rounded to Rs.94,000/-. 16. For the aforesaid discussion, the following amounts of compensation are recalculated and the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4149 MFA No. 23783 of 2012 claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.56,800/-. Heads Amounts awarded by the Tribunal Amounts awarded by this Court. 1. Pain and suffering Rs.15,000/- Rs.25,000/- 2. Medical Expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/- 3. Attendant charges, nursing extra nourishment charges and conveyance charges Rs.14,000/- Rs.20,000/- 4. Loss of future earnings Rs.70,200/- Rs.94,000/- 5. Loss of income during treatment period Rs.6,000/- Rs.8,000/- 6. Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/- TOTAL Rs.1,20,200 Rs.1,77,000/- 17. The appellants who are respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not produced the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal has considered this point and righty held that respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation amount. 18. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bijapur Vs. Yellavva and Another reported in (2020) 2 KCCR 1405 (FB), it is held that if the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective licence, then the owner of the offending vehicle is responsible to pay the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4149 MFA No. 23783 of 2012 compensation amount and the Insurance Company shall pay the said amount of compensation to claimant and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. In the connected case i.e., MFA No.23784/2012, decided on 23.08.2021, the Coordinate Bench of this Court held that the insurer shall pay the compensation amount and recover it from the owner of the vehicle and the same direction shall be issued in the case at hand also. 19. For the aforesaid discussions, this Court pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 30.08.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT, Ron is modified. (iii) The appellant – claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.56,800/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4149 MFA No. 23783 of 2012 (iv) Respondent No.3 – the Insurer is directed to pay the said compensation amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. (v) The Registry to draw award accordingly. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE VNP / CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5