- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6698 MFA No. 100032 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 104259 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA M.F.A. NO. 100032 OF 2023 C/W. M.F.A. NO. 104259 OF 2022 (MV-I) IN M.F.A. NO. 100032/2023 BETWEEN: THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY, ATOMIC MINERALS DIRECTORATE FOR EXPLORATION AND RESEARCH, SOUTHERN REGION, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560 072. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. VENKATESH M. KHARVI, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. BASAVARAJ KALLAPPA KUMKAD, AGE 27 YEARS, OCC. MASON WORK, NOW NIL, R/O. KURIHAL (K.H), TALUK/DIST. BELAGAVI-591143. - RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY HON’BLE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND M.A.C.T-V, BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI IN M.V.C. NO.23/2021 DATED 07.07.2022 AND ETC. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6698 MFA No. 100032 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 104259 of 2022 IN M.F.A. NO. 104259/2022 BETWEEN: SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. KALLAPPA KUMKAD, AGE 28 YEARS, OCC: MASON WORK, NOW NIL, R/O. KURIHAL (K.H), TQ & DIST. BELAGAVI-591143. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY, ATOMIC MINERALS DIRECTORATE FOR EXPLORATION AND RESEARCH, SOUTHERN REGION, NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU-560072, TQ AND DIST. BENGALURU. - RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VENKATESH M. KHARVI, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT-V, BELAGAVI, IN MVC NO.23/2021 DATED 07.07.2022 AND ETC. THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6698 MFA No. 100032 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 104259 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) Respondent-owner of the offending vehicle has filed appeal in M.F.A. No. 100032/2023 and claimant has filed appeal in M.F.A. No. 104259/2022 against judgment and award dated 07.07.2022 passed in M.V.C. No.23/2011 by the 4th Addl. Dist. Judge & MACT, Belagavi (for short, the Tribunal). Hence both the appeals are taken up together for disposal. Parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.12.2020 claimant was riding the motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA- 22-EU-4951 and going towards Balekundri K.H. village, on Belagavi-Bagalkot road met with an accident near K.V.G. Bank, within the limits of Sambra village, due to rash and negligent driving of the Bolero vehicle bearing No. KA-41- M-1641 (for short ‘offending vehicle’) as a result of which - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6698 MFA No. 100032 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 104259 of 2022 claimant sustained grievous injuries. With these reasons he prayed to award compensation. 3. Respondent in its objection statement denied the averments stated in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. On the basis of rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. Claimant to prove his case examined two witnesses as PW1 and 2 and marked 14 documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.14. Respondent has not led oral or documentary evidence. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating pleadings and documents held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The Tribunal assessed age, injuries, multiplier, percentage of disability, etc. and awarded compensation of Rs.7,16,120/- as per the impugned award. Aggrieved by the findings of the Tribunal, both the claimants as well as owner of the offending vehicle filed these appeals. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6698 MFA No. 100032 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 104259 of 2022 5. I have heard arguments of both the parties. The following questions arise for consideration. (i) Whether the finding of Tribunal that accident had taken place due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is justifiable? (ii) Whether the appellant-owner of the offending vehicle proves that accident had taken place due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle? (iii) Whether the Tribunal has awarded just amount of compensation? 6. Questions No.1 and 2: The main contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/owner of the offending vehicle is that rider of the motorcycle had no valid and effective driving licence to ride the motorcycle; he was not wearing the helmet; he rode the motorcycle at the wrong side of the road and hit against rear side of the offending vehicle. These facts were not considered by the Tribunal and erroneously held that accident had taken place due to negligence of driver of the offending vehicle. 7. The counsel for the claimant submits that Tribunal has considered these points which are urged before this - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6698 MFA No. 100032 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 104259 of 2022 Court and rightly held that accident had taken place due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Undisputedly charge sheet was laid against the driver of the offending vehicle; contents of the chargesheet also reveal that he was negligent in driving the vehicle; respondent has not examined any witnesses to disprove the contention of the claimant; claimant is victim of the accident and he is an eyewitness. In the cross examination of PW1 nothing is brought out to disbelieve his evidence. Therefore contention of the appellant is not sustainable. 8. The learned Advocate for claimant further submits that not holding of a driving licence cannot be ground to hold that rider of the said vehicle was negligent in riding the vehicle. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. Surinder Singh & Others reported in AIR 2008 SC 2405. He also submits that not wearing of the helmet - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6698 MFA No. 100032 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 104259 of 2022 cannot be a ground to hold that claimant was negligent in riding the motorcycle. 9. The contention of the claimant is tenable. The fact of the accident and the manner in which the accident occurred are not in serious dispute. Complaint was given by the third party and not the claimant. It is specifically mentioned that “driver of the offending vehicle tried to overtake another vehicle and in that process he did not give attention to the vehicle coming from opposite side and dashed against the said motorcycle”. PW1 was the rider of the motorcycle; he has stated that accident had taken place due to negligence of driver of the offending vehicle. Undisputedly driver of offending vehicle is chargesheeted for the said accident. It is pertinent to note that driver of the offending vehicle has not lodged any complaint against the claimant. If really the accident had taken place due to negligence rider of the of the motorcycle, i.e., claimant, there was no hurdle for the driver of the offending vehicle to report the same to Police. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6698 MFA No. 100032 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 104259 of 2022 Driver of the offending vehicle was a Government Servant, at least he could have placed the said fact before the Police to ascertain truth during investigation. 10. Respondent has not examined the driver of offending vehicle at least to bring on record that accident had taken place due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. In the absence of leading of the proper evidence, it is difficult to believe the contention of the owner of the offending vehicle that accident occurred due to negligence of claimant in riding his vehicle. 11. It is true that rider of the motorcycle was not wearing helmet as admitted in the cross-examination. It is also true that he has not produced his driving licence to ride the motorcycle. They are not sufficient to hold that accident had taken place due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle, but it may lead to an inference that rider has violated provisions of the M.V. Act. Moreover, respondent has not filed any application calling upon the claimant to produce his driving licence or not made any - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6698 MFA No. 100032 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 104259 of 2022 attempt to secure the copy of the driving licence of the claimant. Merely non production of the driving licence by the rider of the motorcycle does not mean tht he was not holding driving licence. Such presumption is not permissible. No issue was framed by the Tribunal regarding the driving licence of the rider of the motorcycle. Hence the contention of the owner of the vehicle is not tenable. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar Rana (supra) held as under: “8. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini-truck which was being driven rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence.” - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6698 MFA No. 100032 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 104259 of 2022 13. The principle of law laid down in the above said judgment is applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, respondent-owner has utterly failed to establish that accident had taken place due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle or due to composite negligence of driver of the offending vehicle as well as rider of the motorcycle. Moreover owner and insurer of the said motorcycle are not party before the Tribunal. In the absence of said necessary parties assessment of the contributory negligence of the rider of the motorcycle in causing the accident is not permissible, as held in the case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3169. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, questions of law No.1 and 2 are answered against the owner of the offending vehicle. 15. Question No. 3: The Tribunal has assessed compensation under different heads. In paragraph No. 18 of the impugned judgment the Tribunal has noted injuries sustained by the claimant and also assessed disability - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6698 MFA No. 100032 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 104259 of 2022 affecting earning capacity of the claimant. In paragraph No. 19 the said calculations were made. The Tribunal at its wisdom assessed income of the claimant at Rs.14,500/- per month holding that injured was a Mason and earning the said amount. Even comparing with the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, there is no much difference. Therefore, I am not inclined to re- consider the income of the claimant. Considering the evidence of PW2 the Tribunal assessed permanent disability as 14% to the whole body and it is also proper and does not call for interference by this Court. 16. The amount of compensation awarded under the head pain and suffering, loss of income during laid up period, loss of amenities are on the lower side, which need enhancement. Considering the materials placed on record and re-appraisal of the materials placed on record, the following amount of compensation is awarded. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6698 MFA No. 100032 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 104259 of 2022 1. Loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability 4,14,120.00 2. Pain and suffering 60,000.00 3. Attendant charges, special died and transport charges 24,000.00 4. Loss of income during laid up period (Rs.14,500/- x 6) 87,000.00 5. Hospital and medical expenses 1,54,500.00 6. Loss of amenities 40,000.00 7. Future medical expenses 20,000.00 Total 7,99,620.00 Award of Tribunal 7,16,120.00 Enhancement 83,500.00 Rounded off 84,000.00 17. It is not in dispute that respondent is the owner of the said vehicle and liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, question No. 3 is answered. 18. For the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following order. ORDER (i) M.F.A. No. 100032/2023 filed by the owner of the offending vehicle is dismissed. (ii) M.F.A. No. 104259/2022 filed by the claimant is allowed in part. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6698 MFA No. 100032 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 104259 of 2022 (iii) Judgment and award dated 07.07.2022 passed in M.V.C. No.23/2011 by the 4th Addl. Dist. Judge & MACT, Belagavi, is modified. (iv) Claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.84,000/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till its realization. (v) Respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with upto date interest within a period of six weeks from the date of award. Remaining portion of the award of the Tribunal is not disturbed. Send back the trial court records along with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bvv /ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9