- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9350 MFA No. 22931 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22931 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. BASAVARAJ S/O SIDDAPPA KARIGAR AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL, COOLIE, R/O. CHINCHALI, TQ: & DIST: GADAG. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH P HUDEDAGADDI, ADV) AND: 1. SIDAPPA S/O FAKIRAPPA KARIGAR AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRI, R/O. CHINCHALI, TQ: & DIST: GADAG. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., TOTANDARYA VIDYA PEETHA BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, ROTARY CIRCLE, GADAG. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.02.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.63/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, GADAG, 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: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.22 13:07:42 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9350 MFA No. 22931 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the petitioner/appellant being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and also saddling liability on the owner of the vehicle, vide judgment and award dated 24.02.2012 passed in MVC No.63/2005 by the Fast Track Court, and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadag (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on the ground of injuries, and fracture suffered by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 28.02.2005, when he was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-30-J- 0097 as pillion rider, due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the said motor cycle wherein the motor cycle toppled - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9350 MFA No. 22931 of 2012 and the petitioner fell and sustained grievous injuries and spent a huge amount towards medical expense. The petitioner was aged about 21 years as on the date of the accident and earning Rs.5,000/- per month by working as an agricultural coolie work. Hence, prayed to allow the petition. 3. Though, owner appeared through counsel however he did not file a written statement. 4. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition, and it is also contended that the rider of the motorcycle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. It is contended that the owner of the motorcycle had not paid the extra premium, to cover the risk and liability of the pillion rider. Hence, he prayes to dismiss the claim petition as against the insurance company i.e. Respondent No.2. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9350 MFA No. 22931 of 2012 6. The petitioner, to prove his claim, examined himself as PW.1, and marked 10 documents as Exs.P-1 to P- 10. In rebuttal, an official of respondent No.2-insuance company was examined as RW.1, and marked one document as Ex.R-1. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs vide judgment dated 24.02.2012. It is held that the petitioner is entitled to a global compensation of Rs.39,000/- together with costs and interest at the rate 9% per annum on the global compensation amount from the date of petition till its complete realization, and directed respondent No.1, owner of the vehicle, to deposit the global compensation together with costs and interest within two months from the date or the award. 8. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum compensation awarded by the Tribunal and saddling of the liability on the owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent No.1, filed this appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9350 MFA No. 22931 of 2012 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the counsel for respondent No.2- insurance company. 10. Respondent No.1, though served, remained absent, and unrepresented in this appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the insurance policy produced by respondent No.2 discloses that, it is a package policy, and not an act policy. He submits that, the petitioner is covered under the insurance policy and not an act policy. He submits that the Tribunal committed an error, in recording a finding that, the policy is an act policy and not a package policy. He also submits that the petitioner has suffered the fracture of the patella, was operated on and the injury is grievous in nature, and the global compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He also submitted that owner and insurance company be held responsible, jointly and severally, and insurance - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9350 MFA No. 22931 of 2012 company be directed to deposit the compensation amount. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for insurance company i.e. respondent No.2 fairly concedes that as per Ex.R-1-insurance policy, it is a package policy, and hence, prays to dispose of the appeal. He also submits that the global compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, and do not call for an enhancement. Hence, prays to dispose of the appeal. 13. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is : Whether the petitioner proves that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary and erroneous? 15. The petitioner, to substantiate his claim petition examined himself as PW.1, and to prove that the accident - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9350 MFA No. 22931 of 2012 occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle, produced a certified copy of the charge- sheet marked as Ex.P-5. 16. Ex.P-5 discloses that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the said motor cycle. 17. Insofar as liability is concerned: Though, Insurance Company in the written statement has taken a defence that the owner of the vehicle had not paid extra premium, therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal. Insurance Company produced a copy of an insurance policy marked as Ex.R-1, which discloses that, it is a package policy, and not an act policy. The Tribunal, without looking into the contents of Ex.R-1, has recorded that, it is an Act policy. I have perused the contents of Ex.R-1, which clearly indicate that, it is a package policy and, the claim made by the petitioner is covered under Ex.R-1. Respondent No.2, by merely pleading that, it is an Act policy, cannot escape from the liability. The Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9350 MFA No. 22931 of 2012 respondent No.1-owner of the said vehicle. As observed above, the policy is a package policy and Respondent No.2- insurance company is liable to indemnify owner/respondent No.1. Hence, owner and insurance company i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 18. Insofar as quantum is concerned: The petitioner contended that he had suffered a fracture of the patella and was operated. To prove the permanent disability, the petitioner has not examined a Doctor. The Tribunal, considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, has awarded global compensation of Rs.39,000/-, which is on the lower side. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that, the petitioner is entitled to a global compensation of Rs.75,000/-. 19. In view of the above discussion, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9350 MFA No. 22931 of 2012 20. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following ORDER i. The appeal is allowed with costs. ii. The judgment and award dated 24.02.2012 passed in MVC No.63/2005 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadag, is hereby modified. The petitioner is entitled to a global compensation of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) together with the costs, and interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the global compensation from the date of the petition till its realisation. iii. The owner and the insurance company i.e. respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Insurance Company i.e. respondent No.2, being the insurer is liable to indemnify owner-respondent No.1. Insurance Company i.e. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the global compensation - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9350 MFA No. 22931 of 2012 together with costs and interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Draw award accordingly. Office is directed to transmit the trial court records. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB