- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5324 MFA No. 100045 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MFA NO. 100045 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SUDEV PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR, OPP: LAXMI TEMPLE, DAJIBANPET, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER, SHRI. SHANTI TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, 3RD MAIN, 141, EAST OF N.G.E.F. LAYOUT, KASTURINAGAR, BENGALURU-560043. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SUSHILABAI W/O. JAISINGARAO KADAM, AGE 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MIRJI, TALUK: MUDHOL, NOW RESIDING AT: GODACHI, TALUK: RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. ANIL S/O. NARAYANATAV INDULAKAR, AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. MIRJI, TALUK: MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT. (OWNER OF PIAGGIO APE PASSENGER RICKSHAW) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURURAJ R. TURAMARI, ADV. FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 - SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.10.2016 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T, RAMDURG SITTING AT SAUNDATTI, IN MVC NO.927/2014, WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5324 MFA No. 100045 of 2017 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. This appeal is filed by the Respondent No.2 appellant – Insurance Company calling in question the judgment and award dated 7th October 2016 passed in MVC No.927 of 2014 by the Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Ramdurg, sitting at Sandatti (for short “the Tribunal”) challenging its liability to pay the compensation as well as quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant amounts of compensation that are disproportionate to the injuries sustained by the claimant. Therefore, the compensation needs to be recalculated. The claimant was unable to prove his income, and the Tribunal ought to have - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5324 MFA No. 100045 of 2017 considered the notional income based on the chart prepared by the KSLSA. However, the Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/- per month without any basis. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is excessive. Therefore, he prays to award just compensation. He further contends that, the driver of the vehicle did not have a licence to drive such a class of vehicle and that there was a violation of permit conditions. Therefore, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant prays that the order be modified accordingly. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record, rightly awarded the compensation, and it does not call for any interference by this Court. He further contends that the policy of insurance is not in dispute. Owner of vehicle has not committed violation of conditions of policy of insurance or the permit conditions. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5324 MFA No. 100045 of 2017 The driver had valid and effective driving licence to drive such class of vehicle. Even if it is not proved at the most the Insurance Company has to pay compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Hence, he prays for the dismissal of the appeal. 5. Perused the materials available on record. Following points arise for the consideration in this appeal: (i) Whether the Tribunal has awarded a just amount of compensation? (ii) Whether the absence of a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and traveling beyond the permitted limit will absolve the insurer of its liability to pay compensation? Re: Point Nos.1 & 2: 6. The facts of the accident are not in dispute. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the passenger auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA- 48/5287 by its driver on 19.06.2013, near Roogi Cross. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5324 MFA No. 100045 of 2017 There is no need to reconsider this, as the accident is not seriously disputed. 7. The claimant had sustained a fracture to the lower end of the left radius and a cut lacerated wound over the skull, as noted in Ex.P5. The claimant has taken treatment at a Government Hospital as an inpatient for a period of one month. Considering the nature of injuries and treatment taken, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering is on the higher side and needs to be reduced. 8. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation to be payable under the head loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability, has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/- per month. Admittedly there is no basis to accept this figure. Therefore, the notional income of the claimant should be assessed as per the chart prepared by the KSLSA. The notional income of a victim of an accident of the year 2013 is Rs.7,500/- and the same could be applied to the facts of the present case. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5324 MFA No. 100045 of 2017 9. The Tribunal has assessed the appropriate disability at 7% to the whole body and applied the multiplier of 11, which are not in dispute. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to a loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability is Rs.69,300/- (Rs.7,500/- x 12 x 11 x 7%). 10. In view of the reduction in the amount of earnings, the compensation awarded under the head, loss of earning during laid-up period is also to be recalculated. 11. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded under the head of loss of amenities is on the higher side cannot be accepted considering the injuries sustained by the claimant. The Tribunal appreciating the said facts and difficulties, the claimant has been suffering, rightly awarded the said amount. 12. For the aforesaid discussion, following amounts of compensation are recalculated as under: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5324 MFA No. 100045 of 2017 1. Pain and suffering Rs.60,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.10,000/- 3. Attendant charges nursing, extra nourishment charges and conveyance charges Rs.32,000/- 4. Loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability Rs.69,300/- 5. Loss of income during treatment period Rs.30,000/- 6. Loss of amenities Rs.60,000/- TOTAL Rs.2,61,300/- Less: the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.3,01,200/- Reduction in the compensation Rs.39,900/- 13. The claimant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.2,61,300/- instead of Rs.3,01,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant seriously contends that interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% p.a. is exorbitant and the same shall be reduced to 6%. 15. Awarding interest is the discretion of the Court, the Tribunal in paragraph No.23 of the impugned judgment relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court and awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a. this Court is not inclined to reduce the same. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5324 MFA No. 100045 of 2017 16. Admittedly, the owner of the vehicle violated the conditions of the policy. The driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive such class of vehicle as on the date of the accident. In addition to that, he had violated the permit conditions and the driver of the vehicle drove the said vehicle beyond the permitted limit. In view of these reasons, the owner himself is liable to pay the compensation. It is not in dispute that the said vehicle was insured with the appellant herein and the violation of the conditions of the policy is the conduct between the appellant and respondent No.2 and the claimant is not responsible for the same. The appellant – Insurer is liable to pay the said amount of compensation and liberty is also reserved to recover it from the owner of the vehicle in an appropriate proceedings. 17. For the aforesaid reason, point Nos.1 and 2 framed above are answered partly affirmative in favour of the appellant herein. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5324 MFA No. 100045 of 2017 18. For the aforesaid discussions, this Court pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 7th October 2016 passed in MVC No.927 of 2014 by the Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Ramdurg, sitting at Sandatti is modified. (iii) The appellant – claimant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.2,61,300/- instead of Rs.3,01,200/- awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. (iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and also is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle i.e., respondent No.1 in an appropriate proceedings. (v) On deposit the compensation amount, the Tribunal is directed to release the entire amount of compensation in favour of the claimant on proper identification. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5324 MFA No. 100045 of 2017 (vi) The Registry to send a copy of this judgment forthwith to the Tribunal. (vii) The Registry to draw award accordingly. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE VNP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7