- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39236 MFA No. 2221 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2221/2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: PUTTAMADAMMA @ NANJAMMA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. KOTHEGALA VILLAGE, KYATHANAHALLY POST, H D KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-570 021. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M Y., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ARUN S/O. ANAND, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NO. 273, 12TH CROSS, B BLOCK, J P NAGARA, MYSURU-570 013. 2. PARASHIVAMURTHY M N, S/O. LATE. M R NANJAPPA, MAJOR, R/AT NO. 234, 2ND STAGE, KUVEMPUNAGARA (HUDCO), MYSURU-570 019. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD, NO. 2951, JLB ROAD, CHAMUNDIPURAM, MYSURU-570 004. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39236 MFA No. 2221 of 2019 (BY SRI. S. NANJUNDASWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2, SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1139/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.09.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 17.11.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Court of Small Causes, as a Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mysuru in M.V.C. No.1139 of 2014. 2. The injured claimant, aged 65 years, met with an accident on 14.03.2014 and filed claim application claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted Rs.2,36,500/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39236 MFA No. 2221 of 2019 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-claimant has preferred this appeal mainly contending that the Tribunal exonerated the insurance company on the ground that respondent No.1-rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-09 EZ- 9120, did not have driving licence. The petitioner-claimant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PAPPU AND OTHERS VS. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2018 SC 592, in which it was held that the insurer was liable on the principle of pay and recover. It is further contended that, as per the evidence of PW.2-Doctor and Exhibit P.7-wound certificate, the petitioner- claimant sustained fracture of shaft of left humerus, but less amounts are granted under the heads pain and suffering, incidental expenses and loss of income during the laid up period. It is also contended that the petitioner-claimant was doing coolie work and earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken Rs.7,500/- per month towards notional income and it is on the lower side. Therefore, requested for enhancement in compensation and also the interest at the rate of 12% per annum. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39236 MFA No. 2221 of 2019 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pappu’s case, cited supra, wherein it was held as follows: “110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is as follows: (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third-party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (ii) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act. (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub- section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39236 MFA No. 2221 of 2019 avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) Insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish “breach” on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof where for would be on them. (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case. (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act. (vii) The question, as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver (a fake one or otherwise), does not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39236 MFA No. 2221 of 2019 fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case. (viii) XXX (ix) XXX (x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the Tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of Section 149(2) read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third-party under the award of the Tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the Tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the Tribunal. (xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with the proviso thereunder and sub- section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover the amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse to by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of the insurer against the insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39236 MFA No. 2221 of 2019 claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims.” 6. On 14.03.2014, While petitioner-claimant was going by walk, a motor cycle with registration No.KA-09 EZ-9120 came in a high speed with rash and negligent manner and dashed, as a result, she fell down and sustained injuries. Petitioner-claimant was aged 65 years, working as a coolie and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. She examined P.W.2-doctor and also filed wound certificate (Exhibit P.7). She sustained head injury, fracture shaft of left humerus and 4 to 7 ribs. She was in patient for 24 days. P.W.2 has assessed the disability of the petitioner as 36.8% towards left upper number. But the Tribunal has taken 10% disability to the whole body. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner was aged 65 years and she met with an accident on 14.03.2014 and taken the notional income of Rs.7,500/- per month and multiplier as 7. Since, the petitioner met with the accident in the year 2014, this Court finds it reasonable to take her national income as Rs.8,500/- per month as per the guidelines of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Thus, the loss of income due to disability comes to Rs.71,400/-. (Rs.8,500x12x7x10%). The Tribunal - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39236 MFA No. 2221 of 2019 observed that the petitioner might not have attended to any work at least for 3 months. But considering the injuries sustained by her, she might not have attended any other work at least for a period of 6 months. Therefore, she is granted Rs.51,000/- (8,500 x 6) towards loss of earning during the laid up period. 7. The Tribunal also granted Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.1,00,000/- for medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- for future medical expenses and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said order. The petitioner is also entitled for Rs.15,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.30,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. 8. In all, the petitioner-claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.3,12,400/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.2,36,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. 9. The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is modified as under: Heads Amount in Rs. 1. Loss of income due to disability 71,400/- 2. Pain and suffering 25,000/- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39236 MFA No. 2221 of 2019 3. Attendant charges, extra food and conveyance expenses 30,000/- 4. Medical Expenses 1,00,000/- 5. Loss of income during laid up period 51,000/- 6. Loss of amenities 15,000/- 7. Future medical expenses 20,000/- Total 3,12,400/- 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-insurance company argued that the xerox copy of the driving license of respondent No.1-rider is filed. Though respondent Nos.1 and 2 are rider and owner of the motorcycle and filed written statement, they did not step into the witness box. The accident occurred on 14.03.2014 and the driving licence was issued on 03.05.2014, subsequent to the accident in question. Thus, the rider of the motorcycle has no valid driving licence as on the date of incident. The owner of the motorcycle engaged the driver/rider without verifying as to whether the rider had a valid driving licence or not. Therefore, it is argued that, it amounts to breach of conditions of the policy and the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and therefore, the Tribunal has also exonerated the insurance company. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39236 MFA No. 2221 of 2019 11. In the present case, the petitioner-claimant met with an accident and sustained injuries. Therefore, this Court considering the ratio laid down in the judgment of Pappu’s case, cited supra, finds it reasonable to direct respondent No.3- insurance company to deposit the amount and to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, by due process of law. 12. In the result, the following order is passed: (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The claimant is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.3,12,400/- with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation. (iii) Respondent No.3-insurance company is directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount along with interest within one month from the date of this order. (iv) On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount along with interest accrued thereon. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39236 MFA No. 2221 of 2019 (v) Respondent No.3-insurance company is at liberty to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle, by due process of law. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53