- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27743 MFA No. 708 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 9755 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 708 OF 2014 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9755 OF 2013(MV-I) IN MFA No. 708/2014: BETWEEN: 1. SRI DYAMAPPA S/O MALLAPPA AGE: 40 YEARS R/O KURLAPPA BUILDING THIGALAPALYA, PEENYA 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE. &APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANANDA SHETTY A.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI G SREENIVASA S/O SUBBARAO AGED : 47 YEARS R/O YARAVANAGATHIHALLI VILLAGE (CAMP) DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT 2. SRI G M GUNDLAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27743 MFA No. 708 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 9755 of 2013 AGE: MAJOR DRIVER OF KASHIVISHWANATHA BUS, BEARING REGN NO KA 17A/4248, R/O BEHIND ITI COLLEGE, HADADI ROAD, DAVANAGERE 3. SRI PALAKSHAYYA S/O HALAYYA AGE: 45 YEAS OWNER OF KASHIVISHWANATHA BUS BEARING REGN NO KA 17A/4248, R/O SANTHEBENNUR VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK 4. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, LAMINGTON ROAD HUBLI POLICY ISSUING OFFICE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, YARWADA PUNE, POLICE NO OG 08 9995 1812 00003635 VALID FROM 14-04-2008 TO 15-04-2009. &RESPONDENTS (BY R-1 SERVED, R-2 NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT, SRI. MANJUNATHA PATTANASHETTY, ADVOCATE, FOR R-3) MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.7.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.760/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27743 MFA No. 708 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 9755 of 2013 JUDGE & VI ADDL. MACT, DAVANGERE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.1,77,075/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION OR DEPOSIT. IN MFA NO. 9755/2013: BETWEEN: 1. G SREENIVASA S/O SUBBARAO AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O YARAVANAGATHIHALLI VILLAGE (CAMP) DAVANAGERE 577001 (THE APPELLANT IS THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL) ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANJULA R KAMADOLLI .,ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: 1. G M GUNDLAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA MAJOR DRIVER OF KASHIVISHWANATHA BUS BEARING REG. NO.KA17/4248 R/O BEHIND ITI COLLEGE, HADADI ROAD DAVANAGERE 577001 2. PALAKSHAYYA S/O HALAYYA AGE: 45 YEARS, OWNER OF KASHIVISHWANATHA BUS BEARING REG. NO.KA14/4248 R/O SANTHEBENNUR VILLAGE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27743 MFA No. 708 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 9755 of 2013 CHANNAGIRI TALUK 577213 DAVANAGERE DIST. 3. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, LAMINGTON ROAD HUBLI 580020 DHARWAD DIST. POLICY ISSUING OFFICE: BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, YARAWADA-PUNE POLICY NO.G-08-9995-1812-00003655 VALID FROM 16-4-2008 TO 15-4-2009 4. DYAMAPPA S/O MALLAPPA AGE: 45 YEARS R/O MUDAKADUR VILLAG HOLALKERE TALUK 577526 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENTS (BY R-1 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH, SRI. P MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI H.S. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-3, SRI A. ANANDA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4) MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.7.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.760/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 6TH ADDITIONAL MACT, DAVANGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27743 MFA No. 708 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 9755 of 2013 COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment and award dated 31st July 2013, passed by the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and VI Addl. M.A.C.T., Davanagere, (for short `the Tribunal'), in MVC No.760/2008. Therefore, they are taken up together for disposal. 2. Respondent No.4 in MVC No.760/2008, who is the alleged purchaser of the Bus has filed MFA No.708/2014 and injured victim of the accident has filed MFA No.9755/2013. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27743 MFA No. 708 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 9755 of 2013 4. Brief facts of the case are that, on 30.06.2008, petitioner was riding Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-17/S-4104 and going from Y.N. Camp to Lokikere Road. At about 8.45 a.m. near Kenchappa's land, a bus by name 'Kashi Vishwanatha' bearing Registration No.KA- 17/A-4248 (for short 'the offending bus') driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the Motor Cycle of the claimant, as a result, he sustained grievous injuries. He took treatment as inpatient in Manipal North Side Hospital, Bangalore, and spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses. It is further contended that he was aged about 42 years. He was doing agriculture and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. Since he has suffered permanent disability, it has affected his earning capacity. With these reasons prayed to award compensation of Rs.26,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1 is stated to be the driver, Respondent No.2 is the R.C. holder and Respondent No.3 is the insurer of the said bus. Respondent No.4 is stated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27743 MFA No. 708 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 9755 of 2013 to be proposed purchaser of the said bus and was in possession of the said bus. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have filed their objections to the claim petition. 6. Respondent No.2 has contended that he was the owner of the said bus, but he sold the said bus to respondent No.4-Dyamappa, for a sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- and an agreement was executed by respondent No.4-Dyamappa on 02.01.2008 and on the said date possession of the bus was handed over to Dyamappa and he was plying the said bus. Therefore, as on the date of accident, though R.C. stands in the name of respondent No.2, but the de-facto owner was respondent No.4. And he is liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the case against him. 7. Respondent No.2 in his written statement denied the contents of the claim petition and denied his liability to pay the compensation. It is also contended that respondent - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27743 MFA No. 708 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 9755 of 2013 No.2 had the permit to ply the said bus and he got it cancelled. Therefore, there was no permit as on the date of accident. Hence respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. 8. Respondent No.4 in his written statement denied the allegations made by respondent No.2 in his written statement and he denied of purchasing of the said vehicle and also denied that he was the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident, and he prayed to dismiss the petition against him. 9. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 10. The claimant to prove his case examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 112 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-112. Respondents examined five witness as RW-1 to RW-5 and marked 16 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-16. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27743 MFA No. 708 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 9755 of 2013 11. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of claimant, as well as driver of the offending bus and apportioned the negligence in the ratio of 25:75 and accordingly awarded the compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal held that as on the date of accident, on the basis of the agreement of sale, the respondent No.4 was the owner of the offending bus and he is liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal also held that respondents 1 and 4 are liable to pay the compensation and awarded the following compensation :- Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and sufferings 25,000/- Medical expenses 1,24,100/- Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 10,000/- Loss of income during laid up period 15,000/- Discomfort and loss of amenities in life 20,000/- Loss of future income 42,000/- - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27743 MFA No. 708 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 9755 of 2013 Total 2,36,100/- Less 25% towards negligence fixed on 1st respondent 59,025/- Total Compensation 1,77,075/- Being aggrieved by the said award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant and respondent No.4 have filed the present appeals. 12. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/de-facto owner, respondent No.4 in MFA No.708/2014 and respondent No.3 in MFA No.9755/2013. 13. The fact of the accident and injury to the claimant are not seriously disputed. Therefore, there is no need to go into the said facts. 14. There is serious dispute between respondent No.2 and respondent No.4 regarding ownership of the said vehicle. Both of them deny their ownership over the vehicle. According to respondent No.2, respondent No.4 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27743 MFA No. 708 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 9755 of 2013 purchased the said bus and he had executed an agreement in this regard and also paid Rs.2,50,000/- as sale consideration to purchase the said bus. Undisputedly RC stands in the name of respondent No.2. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence placed before it, held that respondent No.2 sold the said bus to respondent No.4, therefore, he is liable to pay the compensation. The said document is in serious dispute. Tribunal is not a competent forum to decide the contractual rights between respondents No.2 and 4 on the basis of said agreement. This dispute shall be decided elsewhere. R.C., is an admitted document and still it is standing in the name of respondent No.2. It is settled law that the person whose name is shown in the Registration Certificate be the owner of the bus. Since RC stands in the name of respondent No.2, he is the owner of the offending bus and he is liable to pay the compensation. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant (de-facto owner) Dhyamappa relies on the decision PUSHPA ALIAS LEELA - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27743 MFA No. 708 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 9755 of 2013 AND OTHERS reported in (2011) 2 SCC 240 and also the decision of NAVEEN KUMAR Vs. VIJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 983. In the above cited both the cases it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in case of disputed ownership of the offending vehicle, for the purpose of fixing the liability, the holder of the R.C. is responsible for the same. Therefore, for all practical purpose respondent No.2 shall pay the compensation as the owner of the said vehicle. 16. The next question is whether there is a violation of permit conditions by the owner of the vehicle. Respondent No.2 has produced the document to show that he had filed an application before the RTO and got cancelled/discontinued the permit given to the said bus to ply on a certain route. The said permit was cancelled on the premise that it was sold by the owner of the vehicle. Thereafter, it appears there was no permit to ply the said bus on a public road, which is in violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance and under Section 147, - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27743 MFA No. 708 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 9755 of 2013 the respondent /insurer permitted to disown its liability to pay the compensation. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant (de-facto owner) also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in MFA No.5960/2015 (MV-D) C/w MFA No.706/2013 (MV-D) dated 27.07.2021 in the case of SMT. REHANNA BEGUM Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. The facts of that case are different. In that case, the vehicle deviating the permit route was plying, but the said vehicle had permit. Considering the same, it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that a minor deviation in the route, cannot be a ground to the insurer to deny its liability to pay the compensation. But in this case, as on the date of the accident, the said vehicle was not at all having any permit. Deviation of the permit route and not holding of the permit are totally different facts. Therefore, the law laid down in the said judgment do not help the case of the appellant to take shelter under the said judgment. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27743 MFA No. 708 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 9755 of 2013 18. The claimant in MFA No.9755/2013 has filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal discussed in detail about the injury sustained by the claimant in the accident. He had sustained three fractures and spent substantial amount towards medical expenses. According to evidence of PW.2, claimant has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 5% to upper limb and 5% to the lower limb. Tribunal considering the same, assessed the total permanent disability at 5%. The said finding is not erroneous. Looking to the evidence of PW.2, the Tribunal assessed the same. Claimant also contended that income taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The claimant was an agriculturist and earning Rs.40,000/- per month. Except the self serving statement, there are no materials to prove that he was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. Moreover, he continued ownership over the agricultural lands he was owning prior to accident. Therefore, there may not be any loss of total income from the said lands. Considering the said case, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27743 MFA No. 708 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 9755 of 2013 the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.5,000/- per month, which is not on the lower side. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'Pain and suffering, loss of amenities and Miscellaneous expenses' are on the lower side, which requires enhancement. 19. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials placed on record, held that accident took place due to contributory negligence of the rider of the Motor Cycle i.e., claimant and driver of the bus and apportioned the negligence in the ratio of 25:75. Driver of the bus contributed to an extent of 75% negligence and the said finding is based on the facts and materials, which does not call for any interference. 20. For the aforesaid discussion and after re-appreciating all the evidence, claimant is entitled to following compensation:- - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27743 MFA No. 708 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 9755 of 2013 Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and sufferings 75,000/- Medical expenses 1,24,100/- Special diet, conveyance and attendant charges 20,000/- Loss of income during laid up period (Rs.5,000/- x 3) 15,000/- Loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability 42,000 Loss of amenities 40,000/- Total 3,16,100/- Less compensation awarded by Tribunal 2,36,100/- Enhancement 80,000/- 21. The Tribunal held that claimant has contributed negligence to an extent of 25% for causing the accident. Hence claimant is entitled for 75% of the above said enhanced amount i.e., Rs.60,000/- out of Rs.80,000/-. He is entitled to interest on the said amount of enhancement - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27743 MFA No. 708 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 9755 of 2013 from the date of claim petition till the date of its realization. 22. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurer contends that interest awarded at the rate of 8% during the year 2008 is exorbitant and therefore, prays to reduce the said interest to 6%. 23. Awarding of interest is at the discretion of the Tribunal. Rate of interest awarded is not exorbitant. On the contrary, the Tribunal relying on the judgment of the Apex Court awarded the said interest. Therefore, I am not inclined to re-consider the same. 24. As already stated above the said offending vehicle was plying without permit at the time of accident. It is not in dispute that respondent No.3 was insurer and policy of insurance was valid as on the date of accident. Therefore, respondent No.3 is liable to pay compensation to third party and it is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle i.e., respondent No.2. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27743 MFA No. 708 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 9755 of 2013 25. As stated in above paragraph inter se dispute between respondent No.2 and respondent No.4 shall be decided elsewhere and in this summary proceedings. Hence liberty is given to respondent No.2 to get it decided in an appropriate forum. 26. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) Both the above appeals are allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 31st July 2013, passed in MVC.No.760/2008, by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and VI Additional M.A.C.T., Davangere, stands modified. iii) The claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation of Rs.60,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till its realization. iv) The respondent No.3/Insurance Company shall pay the said amount of compensation to - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27743 MFA No. 708 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 9755 of 2013 the claimant (including the amount awarded by the Tribunal) and it is at liberty to recover the same from respondent No.2 in an appropriate proceedings, on the basis of this award. v) Liberty is reserved to respondent No.2 to get resolved inter se dispute between himself with respondent No.4 elsewhere in accordance with law. vi) The remaining portion of the award of the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. vii) No order as to costs. viii) Draw award accordingly. ix) The amount in deposit, if any, made by the appellant in MFA No.708/2014 is ordered to be refunded to the appellant (Respondent No.4) on due identification. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16