- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12829 MFA No. 101154 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101156 of 2014 MFA No. 101157 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101154 OF 2014 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101156 OF 2014 (MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101157 OF 2014 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 101154/2014 BETWEEN: 1. DAVID S/O AGUSTIN KANAVALLI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: TUMARIKOPPA, TQ: KALGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURYAVANSHI RAMESH SAMBHAJI, ADV) AND: 1. SMT. KAREWWA W/O CHANDRU METRI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS, R/O: MANGALWAD, TQ: HALIYAL, DIST: KARWAR. (OWNER OF THE TRACTOR AND TRAILER NO.KA-31/T-2133-2134) 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., (BRANCH OFFICE MODI COMPLEX, SIRSI) TQ: SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR, POLICY NO.41301/31/10/01/00003002 VALID FROM 14/06/2010 TO 13/06/2011 INSURER OF T.T. UNIT NO.KA-31/T-2133-2134) 3. GOUDAPPAGOUDA B PATIL AGE: MAJOR, OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS, R/O: KAMADHENU, TQ: KALGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD (OWNER OF TEMPO BEARING NO. KA-27/4196) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.27 11:23:30 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12829 MFA No. 101154 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101156 of 2014 MFA No. 101157 of 2014 4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., SUJATHA COMPLEX, HUBLI, POLICY NO.602500/31/11/6700000737 VALID FROM 28/05/2011 TO 27/05/2012 (INSURER OF TEMPO NO.KA-27/4196) …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADV FOR R2, SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADV FOR R4, NOTICE TO R1 & R3 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:24.01.2014, PASSED IN MVC. NO.617/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT., DHARWAD SITTING AT KALGHATAGI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 101156/2014 BETWEEN: 1. SULOCHANA D/O AGUSTIN KANAVALLI AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL SERVICE IN CHURCH, R/O: TUMARIKOPPA, TQ: KALGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURYAVANSHI RAMESH SAMBHAJI, ADV) AND: 1. SMT. KAREWWA W/O CHANDRU METRI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS, R/O: MANGALWAD, TQ: HALIYAL, DIST: KARWAR (OWNER OF THE TRACTOR & TRAILER NO.KA-31/T-2133-2134) 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE UNITED INIDA INSURANCE CO. LTD., (BRANCH OFFICE MODI COMPLEX, SIRSI), TQ: SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR, POLICY NO.41301/31/10/01/00003002 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12829 MFA No. 101154 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101156 of 2014 MFA No. 101157 of 2014 VALID FROM 14/06/2010 TO 13/06/2011 (INSURER OF T.T.UNIT NO.KA-31/T-2133-2134. 3. GOUDAPPAGOUD B PATIL AGE: MAJOR, OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS, R/O: KAMADHENU, TQ: KALGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD (OWNER OF TEMPO BEARING NO.KA-27/4196) 4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUJATHA COMPLEX HUBLI, POLICY NO.602500/31/11/6700000737 VALID FROM 28/05/2011 TO 27/05/2012 (INSURER OF TEMP NO.KA-27/4196) ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADV FOR R2, SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADV FOR R4, NOTICE TO R1 & R3 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:24.01.2014, PASSED IN MVC. NO.643/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT., DHARWAD SITTING AT KALGHATAGI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 101157/2014 BETWEEN: 1. DHRUVA S/O PRADEEP BHUJAWANI, AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: TUMARIKOPPA, TQ: KALHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. (SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN I.E. GRANDMOTHER SMT. RAYAVVA W/O AGUSTIN KANAVALLI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: TUMARIKOPPA, TQ:KALGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD). ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURYAVANSHI RAMESH SAMBHAJI, ADV) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12829 MFA No. 101154 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101156 of 2014 MFA No. 101157 of 2014 AND: 1. SMT. KAREWWA W/O CHANDRU METRI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS, R/O: MANGALWAD, TQ: HALIYAL, DIST: KARWAR (OWNER OF THE TRACTOR & TRAILER NO.KA-31/T-2133-2134) 2. THE UNITED INIDA INSURANCE CO. LTD., (BRANCH OFFICE MODI COMPLEX, SIRSI), TQ: SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR, POLICY NO.41301/31/10/01/00003002 VALID FROM 14/06/2010 TO 13/06/2011 (INSURER OF T.T. UNIT NO.KA-31/T-2133-2134. 3. GOUDAPPAGOUD B PATIL AGE: MAJOR, OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS, R/O: KAMADHENU, TQ: KALGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD (OWNER OF TEMPO BEARING NO.KA-27/4196) 4. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUJATHA COMPLEX HUBLI, POLICY NO.602500/31/11/6700000737 VALID FROM 28/05/2011 TO 27/05/2012 (INSURER OF TEMP NO.KA-27/4196) ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADV FOR R2, SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADV FOR R4, NOTICE TO R1 & R3 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:24.01.2014, PASSED IN MVC. NO.610/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT., DHARWAD SITTING AT KALGHATAGI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12829 MFA No. 101154 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101156 of 2014 MFA No. 101157 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT These appeals arise out of a common judgment and award dated 24.01.2014 passed in MVCs No.617/2012, 643/2012 and 610/2012 by the learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Dharwad, Sitting at Kalghatagi (‘Tribunal’ for short). 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows: 2.1. On 04.05.2012 at about 09:00 p.m., the petitioners were travelling in a tempo bearing Reg.No. KA-27/4196 from Kalghatgi to Tumarikoppa Village along with the other inmates. At that time, when the said tempo came near Begur cross, a tractor and trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-31/T-2133/2134 came from the opposite direction at a great speed, rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the tempo. As a result, the inmates have sustained grievous injuries. The petitioners filed a claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12829 MFA No. 101154 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101156 of 2014 MFA No. 101157 of 2014 the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 3. A notice was issued to the respondents before the Tribunal. Respondents No.2 and 4 i.e., the insurers appeared through counsel, and filed their statement of objections. Respondent No.3 i.e., owner of tempo appeared through the counsel, however, did not file a statement of objections. Respondent No.1 i.e., owner of the tractor, despite the service of notice, remained unrepresented and was placed ex-parte. 4. Respondent No.4 - National Insurance Company Limited filed a statement of objection denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident and accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12829 MFA No. 101154 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101156 of 2014 MFA No. 101157 of 2014 5. Respondent No.2 - United India Insurance Company Limited also filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that, the liability of Insurance Company is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, there was a contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both offending vehicles and hence, prays to dismiss the claim petitions against the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 6. The Tribunal clubbed the claim petitions and framed separate issues. 7. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, the grandmother of the petitioner, who being minor in MVC No.610/2012 was examined as PW1; the father of the petitioner in MVC No.613/2012 was examined as PW1; the petitioner in MVC No.643/2012 was examined as PW-1; and marked 5 documents as Exs.P1 to P5. In MVC No.617/2012, the petitioner himself examined as PW-1, examined the Doctor as PW-2, and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. In rebuttal, the Officer of the Insurance - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12829 MFA No. 101154 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101156 of 2014 MFA No. 101157 of 2014 Company i.e., United India Insurance Co. Ltd. was examined as RW-1 in common in all the cases, and marked 4 documents as Exs.R1 to R4. 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part vide common judgment and dated 24.01.2014 and awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- in MVC No.610/2012, Rs.8,000/- in MVC No.613/2012, Rs.1,32,000/- in MVC No.617/2012 and Rs.8,000/- in MVC No.643/2012. The owner of the tractor and trailer was directed to deposit the compensation amount. 9. The petitioners, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed these appeals. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned counsel for the Insurance Companies. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in MVC No.617/2012, the petitioner has examined - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12829 MFA No. 101154 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101156 of 2014 MFA No. 101157 of 2014 the Doctor as PW-2, who opined that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 30%, whereas the Tribunal has taken the disability at 10%, which is on the lower side. Hence, on this ground, he prays to enhance the compensation by allowing the appeals. 12. Per contra learned counsel for the Insurance Companies submit that the compensations awarded by the Tribunal are just and proper and do not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, pray to dismiss the appeals. 13. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The points that would arise for consideration are regarding the quantum of compensation and the liability. 14. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioners in a road traffic accident. The petitioners produced a - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12829 MFA No. 101154 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101156 of 2014 MFA No. 101157 of 2014 charge sheet marked as Ex.P3, which is filed against the driver of the tractor. The Tribunal was justified in answering issue No.1 in the affirmative in all the cases. Reg. Quantum of compensation: 15. The petitioner’s father in MVC No.613/2012 was examined as PW-1, who has deposed that he and his son have met with an accident and suffered a disability. To prove the disability, the petitioner has not examined the doctor. From the perusal of the injury certificate at Ex.P5, it discloses that the petitioner has sustained, (1) abrasion over the left elbow, (2) abrasion over the right middle finger. As per the opinion of the doctor, the injuries are simple in nature, and further, the petitioner has not produced any medical bills to show that his father has spent the amount towards the medical expenses. The tribunal considering the nature of injuries, has rightly awarded a global compensation of Rs.8,000/-, which is just and proper. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12829 MFA No. 101154 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101156 of 2014 MFA No. 101157 of 2014 MFA No.101154/2014 (MVC No.617/2012): 16. In MVC No.617/2012, the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability in the road traffic accident. To prove the disability, the petitioner examined the Doctor as PW-2, who deposed that the he is practicing as an Orthopedic Surgeon at KIMS Hospital since 8 years, and he has examined the petitioners in this case, aged about 38 years, who had given the history of alleged road traffic accident, and he was treated at Kalghatgi Government Hospital and later on shifted on 05.05.2012. Upon physical examination, he opined that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 30%, whereas the Tribunal assessed the disability at 10%. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, this Court re-assesses the disability at 15%. Admittedly, the accident occurred in 2012. The notional income has to be taken as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority i.e., Rs.6,500/-. The multiplier applicable to the petitioner’s age group is ‘15’. Therefore, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12829 MFA No. 101154 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101156 of 2014 MFA No. 101157 of 2014 the loss of future income comes to Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 15 x 15% = Rs.1,75,500/-. Considering the nature of injuries, this Court re-assesses the compensation under the following heads: Compensation awarded in Rs. Particulars By the Tribunal By this Court Pain and sufferings 30,000 40,000 Attendant charges 3,000 15,000 Food, nourishment, transportation, conveyance charges and other incidental charges including medical expenses 10,000 20,000 Loss of income during laid- up period 12,000 26,000 (6,500 x 4) Loss of comforts and amenities of life 5,000 25,000 Loss of future income 72,000 1,75,500 Total 1,32,000 3,01,500 Enhanced by this Court 1,69,500 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12829 MFA No. 101154 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101156 of 2014 MFA No. 101157 of 2014 Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,01,500/- as against Rs.1,32,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,69,500/-. MFA No.101156/2014 (MVC No.643/2012): 17. In MVC No.643/2012, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1, and produced the injury certificate. He has sustained the following injuries: (1) Abrasion below left knee (2) Abrasion over left elbow As per the opinion of the Doctor, both the injuries are simple in nature. Therefore, the Tribunal, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, awarded a global compensation of Rs.8,000/-, which is just and proper. MFAs No.101157/2014 (MVC No.610/2012): 18. In MVC No.610/2012, the grandmother of the petitioner was examined as PW-1. To prove the disability, - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12829 MFA No. 101154 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101156 of 2014 MFA No. 101157 of 2014 the petitioner has not examined the Doctor and not produced any medical bills. The Tribunal, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/-, which is just and proper. 19. In view of the above discussion, the point on quantum is answered accordingly. Reg. Liability: 20. As of the date of accident, the tractor and trailer were insured with the Insurance Company. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition against the Insurance Company of the tractor and trailer only on the ground that the driver of the tractor did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. There is a breach of policy condition. The Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioners. Admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a licence, however, as of the date of accident, it was expired. The said issue is primarily covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12829 MFA No. 101154 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101156 of 2014 MFA No. 101157 of 2014 Nagappa @ Nagaraja and Others Vs. Ravi Kupaluru and Others1, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows: “27. The Co-Ordinate Bench has held after referring to various judgments that even if there is no renewal endorsement, it cannot be said that the person driving the vehicle was not a licensed driver. It is not a case where the insured entrusted the vehicle to a person who does not hold a driving licence rather admittedly the driver to whom the vehicle was entrusted by the insured was having a valid driving licence duly granted by transport authority. Merely because of expiry of the period of licence and the omission of the driver to get the licence renewed, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that there is breach of condition of policy for which insurance company can be exonerated from the liability. The driver was authorised to drive a transport vehicle and the vehicle was entrusted by the insured to the licensed driver and, therefore, the insurance company cannot absolve itself from the liability. Therefore, it is clear that mere fact that the driver of the vehicle had not got his driving licence renewed on the date of the accident and got it re newed subsequently would not 1 MFA No.103680/2015 c/w MFA No.103681/2015, disposed of on 08.02.2019 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12829 MFA No. 101154 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101156 of 2014 MFA No. 101157 of 2014 amount to breach of condition of the policy as it cannot be said that there was violation of the condition of the policy. Further, in view of the above findings, the Division Bench also held that the question of ordering any recovery of the amount by the insurance company from the insurer did not arise.” Considering the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case, the liability is to be fastened jointly and severally on the owner and the Insurance Company of the tractor and trailer. 21. In view of the same, the point on liability is answered accordingly. 22. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeals are allowed-in-part; ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified; - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12829 MFA No. 101154 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 101156 of 2014 MFA No. 101157 of 2014 iii. The owner and Insurance Company of the tractor are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation; iv. The petitioner in MVC No.643/2012 is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,69,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization; v. Respondent No.2 – United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to deposit the compensation amounts in all three petitions within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; vi. Trial Court records be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith; vii. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE PA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16