- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21102 MFA No. 8692 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8692 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI S P MANJUNATHA S/O PUTTARANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/O SIDDARAGALLU, DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT 573132. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MIR NABI ALI S/O AMEER HASAN MAJOR R/O ALIPUR VILLAGE, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKABALLAPUR DISTRICT 573112. 2. THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD, NO.1974, SRINIVASA COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, CINEMA ROAD, DODDABALLAPURA, BANGALORE DISTRICT 570056. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISMISSED WITH V/O DTD 29.11.2023) Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21102 MFA No. 8692 of 2017 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.36/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, GOWRIBIDANUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The above appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 19881 challenging the judgment and award dated 21.07.2016 passed in MVC No.36/2013 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., MACT, Gowribidanur2 seeking for enhancement of compensation. 2. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 21.07.2016 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of `2,21,160/- together with interest @ 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, the claimant has filed the above appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation. 1 Hereinafter referred as to ‘Act’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21102 MFA No. 8692 of 2017 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel Sri Vasanthappa appearing for the appellant/claimant contends that the Tribunal at para 24 of its judgment has erroneously recorded a finding that the claimant is not entitled to 20% of the compensation and the insurer is liable to pay only 80% of the compensation awarded since the claimant was not holding a valid driving licence. It is further contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Shivaraj Patil, appearing for respondent No.2/insurer justifies the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal both on negligence as well as on the quantum of compensation. 6. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal have been perused. The questions that arise for consideration are: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21102 MFA No. 8692 of 2017 i. Whether the finding of the Tribunal on negligence is erroneous and liable to be interfered with? ii. Whether the quantum of compensation is just and proper? Re.question No.(i): 7. The Tribunal at para 24 of the judgment and award ordered that the claimant was not entitled to 20% of the compensation that was awarded and was entitled only to receive 80% of the compensation awarded from the 2nd respondent-insurer, on the ground that the claimant was not having a valid driving licence. Hence, the Tribunal although having assessed the total compensation as `2,76,444/-, has directed payment of `80% of the said amount of `2,21,160 as payable to the claimant. 8. The Tribunal erred in holding that the claimant was negligent to the extent of 20% only on the ground of the claimant was holding a learner’s licence. It is pertinent to note here that even the holder of a learner’s licence is construed as "duly licenced" for the purpose of Section 3 of the Act of 1988. 9. In view of the aforementioned, the finding of the Tribunal that the claimant is also negligent to the extent of 20% is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21102 MFA No. 8692 of 2017 erroneous and liable to be interfered with. The 2nd respondent is liable to pay the entire compensation that is awarded. 10. Hence, question No.(i) framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. Re. question No.(ii): 11. The claimant is aged 24 years and is stated to be a computer operator. It is averred in the claim petition that the claimant was earning a monthly income of `10,000/-. However, no documents have been produced to prove his income. The Tribunal has assessed the income at `4,500/- per month. However, having regard to the date of the accident and keeping in mind that the notional income of the claimant as on that date, it is just and proper to re-assess the notional income of the claimant as `8,000/-. 12. The wound certificate (Ex.P7), discharge summary (Ex.P9) and other medical records disclose that the claimant had sustained fracture of left humerus and left patella. The claimant was treated as an inpatient at District Hospital, Tumakuru from 06.02.2013 to 08.02.2013 and at Aditya - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21102 MFA No. 8692 of 2017 Hospital from 08.02.2013 to 14.02.2013, Tumakuru for a total period of 09 days. The Medical Records Keeper (PW2) has produced the relevant medical records. The Doctor (PW3) has deposed that the claimant has undergone a surgery on 08.07.2013. Regarding disability caused to the claimant, PW.3 has deposed that the claimant has sustained whole body disability of 18%. Upon an appreciation of the record, the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 18% to the whole body, which is just and proper. 13. In view of the aforementioned, the compensation is re- assed as follows: 13.1 The Tribunal has awarded compensation of `40,000/- towards pain and suffering and `15,000/- towards food and nourishment which is just and proper and no enhancement is required. 13.2 The Tribunal has awarded `34,984/- towards medical expenses as per the actual bills. The said compensation is just and proper and the same was rounded off to `35,000/- . 13.3 Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and the period of treatment during which the claimant was treated as in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21102 MFA No. 8692 of 2017 patient, the period of treatment is assessed as two months and accordingly, a compensation of `16,000/- (`8,000 x 2) is awarded towards the same as against `1,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13.4 The Tribunal has awarded a sum of `10,000/- towards future amenities. However, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and the resultant disability, the compensation towards loss of amenities is re-assessed as `20,000/-. 13.5 Loss of future earning capacity is re-assessed as (`8,000 x 12 x 18 x 18%) `3,11,040/- as against `1,74,960/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14. It is noticed that the Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% per annum. However, taking judicial notice of the interest payable towards fixed deposits, it is just and proper to award interest at the rate of 7% p.a., on the compensation as re- assessed by this Court. 15. In view of the aforementioned, the compensation is re- assessed as follows: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21102 MFA No. 8692 of 2017 Sl.No Compensation Head Amount Awarded by the Tribunal (`) Amount awarded by this Court (`) 1 Towards loss of future earnings 1,74,960.00 3,11,040.00 2 Loss of income during treatment 1,500.00 16,000.00 3 Towards food and nourishment 15,000.00 15,000.00 4 Pain and suffering including incidental charges 40,000.00 40,000.00 5 Towards purchase of medicines 34,984.00 35,000.00 6 Loss of future amenities 10,000.00 20,000.00 Total 2,76,444.00 4,37,040.00 16. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of (`4,37,040/- – `2,76,444/-) = `1,60,596/-. 17. Accordingly, question No.(ii) framed for consideration is answered in the negative. 18. In addition to the above enhancement, the claimant shall also be entitled to the difference amount of 20% having regard to the discussion made at paras 9 to 11 above. The said difference amount of (`2,76,444/- - `2,21,160/-) `55,284/- is also required to be awarded in the present appeal. Hence, the total compensation payable to the claimant, apart from the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21102 MFA No. 8692 of 2017 compensation awarded by the Tribunal is (`1,60,596/- + `55,284/-) `2,15,880/-. 19. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part; ii) The judgment and award dated 21.07.2016 passed in MVC No.36/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., MACT, Gowribidanur is hereby modified to the extent stated herein. In all other respects, the judgment and award of the Tribunal remains unaltered; iii) The appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of `2,15,880/- together with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till its realization in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal; iv) Respondent No.2 – insurer is directed to deposit the said compensation together with accrued interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; v) Upon such deposit, the entire enhanced compensation together with interest accrued thereupon be disbursed to the claimant; - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21102 MFA No. 8692 of 2017 vi) The Registry to draw the modified award accordingly; vii) Records be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. No costs. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 88