- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11605 MFA No. 25434 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25434 OF 2012 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NINGAMMA @ LINGAMMA W/O BOMANNA, 38 YEARS, COOLIE, R/O. NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE, A.P. ROAD, JANATHA NAGAR, BALLARI. …APPELLANT (BY KUM. SOUBHAGYA VAKKUND, ADV FOR SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADV) AND: 1. MARIBASAVANA GOWDA S/O PAMPANA GOWDA, OWNER CUM DRIVER OF THE AUTO BEARING REG. NO.KA-34/TRMT-236, R/O. HARIGINDONI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: BALLARI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.R. MANE, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.03.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.1161/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT NO.X, BALLARI, 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: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.12 16:36:31 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11605 MFA No. 25434 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 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 claimant, challenging the judgment and award dated 16.03.2011 passed in MVC No.1611/2010 by the learned MACT-X, Bellary. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: 3. On 14.07.2010, the petitioner and one Renuka were travelling in an auto-rickshaw bearing KA-34/TRMT- 236 as a paid passenger. The driver of the auto-rickshaw was driving the auto-rickshaw in a rash and negligent manner, and suddenly applied the brake. Due to the said impact, the auto-rickshaw turned turtle, and the petitioner and one Renuka fell down and sustained the grievous injuries. It is contended that the petitioner incurred a huge medical expenses. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, claiming compensation for the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11605 MFA No. 25434 of 2012 injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 4. The owner of the auto-rickshaw appeared through a counsel, but did not file a statement of objections. 5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the driver of the auto-rickshaw did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Thus, there is a breach of policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 7. The petitioner, to substantiate her case, examined herself as P.W.1, examined the doctor as P.W.2, and marked 20 documents as Exs.P1 to P.20. Conversely, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11605 MFA No. 25434 of 2012 the officer of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and marked one document as Ex.R1. 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs vide judgment dated 16.03.2011, and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,21,000/- and directed the owner of the auto-rickshaw to deposit the compensation amount, and the claim petition against the Insurance Company was dismissed. 9. The petitioner, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No.1161/2010, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the, if the Tribunal concludes that the driver of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11605 MFA No. 25434 of 2012 auto-rickshaw did not possess a valid and the effective driving license as of the date of the accident, the Tribunal could have directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation at the first instance and recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle. She submits that as of the date of the accident, the policy was in force. She also submits that though the petitioner has not produced any income proof, the Tribunal should have taken the notional income as per the schedule specified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident occurred in 2010, and the notional income should be taken at Rs.5,500/- p.m., wherein the Tribunal has taken Rs.3,750/- p.m., which is on the lower side. She submits that the compensation awarded under the other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the appeal. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He submits that the driver of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11605 MFA No. 25434 of 2012 auto-rickshaw did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident, and there is a breach of policy conditions. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, and do not call for any interference by this court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. I have perused the records, and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The point, that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation. 15. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident, and the injuries sustained by the petitioner. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto-rickshaw, by its driver. Admittedly, the driver of the auto-rickshaw did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. There is a breach of the policy conditions. The Tribunal was justified in saddling liability on the owner of the auto-rickshaw. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11605 MFA No. 25434 of 2012 Admittedly, as of the date of the accident, the auto- rickshaw was insured with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner. Therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner at the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the auto-rickshaw. Reg. Quantum of compensation: 16. Insofar as the quantum of the compensation is concerned, the petitioner has not produced any income proof. However, the Tribunal has taken Rs.3,750/- p.m., which is on the lower side. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal should have taken the notional income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident occurred in 2010, and the notional income of the petitioner is taken at Rs.5,500/- p.m. The petitioner was aged 38 years old as of the date of the accident. As per the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11605 MFA No. 25434 of 2012 16 SCC 680, 40% future prospects is to be added to his notional income, i.e., Rs.5,500+ Rs.2,200 = Rs.7,700/-. To prove the disability, the petitioner examined the doctor as P.W.2. He opined that the petitioner has sustained a permanent disability to the extent of 15% to the whole body. However, the Tribunal has assessed the functional permanent disability to the whole body at 10%, which is just and proper. 17. Thus, this court on re-assessment of the entire evidence on record, awards the following compensation: Sl. No. Heads of compensation Compensation awarded in Rs. By the Tribunal By this Court 1 Medical and other expenses 17,000 17,000 2 Pain and suffering 20,000 40,000 3 Loss of amenities 5,000 25,000 4 Loss of income during the laid up period 11,250 23,100 (Rs.7,700 x 3) 5 Loss of future earning due to permanent partial disability 67,500 1,38,600 (Rs.7,700/- x12x15x10%) Total : Rounded off to 1,20,750 1,21,000 2,43,700 Enhanced compensation 1,22,700 18. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11605 MFA No. 25434 of 2012 ORDER (i) The Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and the award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified. (iii) The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,43,700/- as against Rs.1,21,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation is Rs.1,22,700/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization of the amount. (iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with accrued interest within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and recover the same from the owner of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11605 MFA No. 25434 of 2012 the auto-rickshaw, in accordance with law. (v) The Tribunal records, and the amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9