- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12180 MFA No. 101396 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101396 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. TAZEEM S/O ABUBAKKAR BIDCHOM AGE:32 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE R/O. MADEENA COLONY BHATKAL, U.K. DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR KOTIN, ADV) AND: 1. RAMAYYA S/O JATTAPPA NAIK AGE: MAJOR, R/O MUNDALLI POST BHATKAL, U.K. DISTRICT. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH KUNDAPURA, PUSHPA BUILDING., MAIN ROAD, KUNDAPURA REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M K SOUDAGAR, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.12.2014, PASSED IN MVC NO.19/2012 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. MACT, HONAVAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12180 MFA No. 101396 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the petitioner being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and liability vide judgment dated 05.12.2014 passed in MVC No.19/2012 by the learned Additional MACT, Honnavar. 2. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. On 01.11.2010, at about 4.30 p.m, when the petitioner was riding his Honda Activa Scooter bearing registration No.KA-47/H-2034 from Bhatkal S Circle towards Bunder side Bunder road, near 5th cross, accident took place and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-47/3158. As a result, the petitioner- the rider of the Honda Activa scooter has sustained the injuries. The petitioner filed a claim petition seeking - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12180 MFA No. 101396 of 2015 compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. 4. Respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that his vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 -Insurance Company and he was holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and prays to dismiss the claim petition against the rider of the offending motorcycle. 5. The Insurance Company filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of accident and there is breach of policy condition. The Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioner. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition. 6. The tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties framed the relevant issues. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12180 MFA No. 101396 of 2015 7. The petitioner to substantiate his case examined himself as PW1, examined the doctor as PW.2 and marked 25 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-25. The Insurance Company examined two witnesses as RW.1 and RW.2 and marked 6 documents as agreed Exs. R1 to R6. 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part against the owner of the offending vehicle and awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,40,450/-. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition against the insurance company on the ground that the driver was not possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of accident. 9. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal filed this appeal. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the insurance company. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12180 MFA No. 101396 of 2015 11. Learned counsel to the petitioner submits that the driver of the autorickshaw was possessing a LMV license and he submits that the said issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663. He submits that the tribunal without considering the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN (referred to supra), has committed an error in fastening the liability on the driver of the offending vehicle. The tribunal could have fastened the liability jointly and severally. Hence, he submits that the tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the driver of the autorickshaw. 12. He also submitted that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability and examined the doctor as PW-2 and he is a treated doctor. He has assessed the disability at 28% to the right lower limb and the tribunal has taken the disability at 5%. He submits that the tribunal would have taken one third of the disability assessed by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12180 MFA No. 101396 of 2015 the doctor. He also submits that the petitioner has not produced any income proof. In the absence of income proof, the tribunal could have assessed the notional income as per the schedule notified by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the impugned judgment and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of incident and the tribunal was justified in assessing the permanent disability at 5% and the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference. Hence, on these grounds prays to dismiss the appeal. 14. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 15. The points that arise for consideration are liability and the quantum of compensation. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12180 MFA No. 101396 of 2015 16. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of accident and injuries sustained in the road traffic accident and the petitioner to demonstrate that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle produced the charge sheet. The Tribunal was justified in recording the finding that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Reg. the Liability: 17. The Insurance Company has taken a specific defense in the statement of objections contending that as of the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license. The petitioner has produced the copy of driving license, which discloses that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing a LMV license. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 and also in the case of JAGDISH KUMAR SOOD VS. UNITED INDIA - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12180 MFA No. 101396 of 2015 INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS reported in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 240/2017 held that if a person possessing a license to drive a light motor vehicle is competent to drive the transport vehicle, and further held that no further endorsement is required to drive the transport vehicle and the said aspect was not properly considered by the tribunal and committed an error in saddling the liability only on the owner of the autorickshaw in question. Thus, the finding recorded by the tribunal needs to be set aside. Insofar as fastening the liability only on the owner of the autorickshaw in question, this court holds that as of the date of incident, the vehicle was insured with the insurance company. The insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner against third party. Thus, this court holds that the owner and insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12180 MFA No. 101396 of 2015 Reg. the quantum of compensation: 18. The petitioner contended that he was aged about 30 years as of the date of incident and he was doing coolie work and was earning more than ₹ 5,000/-. To substantiate his contention, the petitioner has not produced any income proof. The tribunal has taken the notional income at ₹3,000/- which is on the lower side. In the absence of income proof, the tribunal should have taken the notional income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. 19. The accident is of the year 2010. This court reassess the notional income at ₹5,500/-. The petitioner was aged about 30 years as of the date of accident, the multiplier applied to his age group is ‘17’ as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Further, the petitioner also examined the treated doctor as PW-2, who has assessed the disability at 28% to the right lower limb, but he has not assessed the disability to the whole body, wherein, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12180 MFA No. 101396 of 2015 the tribunal has taken the disability at 5%, which is on lower side. The tribunal could have taken 1/3rd of the disability assessed by PW-2, i.e., atleast 10%. 20. Thus, this court considering the evidence of PW-2 and the medical records, reassessed the compensation under the following heads: Compensation awarded in Rs. Sl. No. Heads of compensation By the Tribunal By this Court 1 Pain and suffering 35,000 50,000 2 Medical expenses 38,850 38,850 3 Food, Nourishment, and Attendant and conveyance charges 7,000 15,000 4 Loss of income during the laid up period (5,500X3) 9,000 16,500 5 Loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability (5,500X12X17X10%) 30,600 1,12,200 6 Future medical expenses 15,000 15,000 Loss of amenities 5,000 25,000 Total : 1,40,450/- 2,72,550/- Enhanced compensation (₹ 2,72,550- 1,40,450) ₹1,32,100/- 21. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to total compensation of ₹2,72,550/- as against ₹1,40,450/-. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12180 MFA No. 101396 of 2015 Thus, the petitioner is entitled to the enhanced compensation of ₹1,32,100/-. 22. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby, modified. (iii) The petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation of ₹1,32,100/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. (iv) The owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. (v) The Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (vi) The tribunal is directed to release the entire enhanced compensation amount with - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12180 MFA No. 101396 of 2015 accrued interest in favour of the petitioner after its deposit. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28