- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11693 MFA No. 24409 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24409 OF 2013 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. SHIVAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA GANIGER @ TELI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SALAPUR, TQ:RAMDURG, DIST:BELGAUM. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H. M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. BASAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA GANIGER, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O: SALAPUR, TQ:RAMDURG, DIST:BELGAUM. 2. THE MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD. D.O. AT RAMADEV GALLI, BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1794/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT BELGAUM, AT BELGAUM AND AWARD JUST AND REASONABLE COMPENSATION UNDER THE ALL PERMISSIBLE HEAD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.12 16:40:12 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11693 MFA No. 24409 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. 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 petitioner challenging the dismissal of the claim petition vide judgment dated 27.11.2012 passed in MVC No.1794/2011 by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Belgaum. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. On 21.04.2011, the petitioner was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-24/K-6271 as a pillion rider towards Salapur village, and one Basappa Adiveppa Jadar was riding the motorcycle. He was riding the motorcycle at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, and as a result, lost the control over the motorcycle and dashed to the road side stone, and caused accident. Due to the impact, the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11693 MFA No. 24409 of 2013 petitioner and the said Basappa Jadar sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 4. A Notice was issued to the owner of the motorcycle. Despite the service of a notice, owner of the motorcycle remained unrepresented and was placed ex-parte. 5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that the offending motorcycle was not insured with the insurance company at the material date of accident and that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, there is a breach of policy conditions and accordingly, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11693 MFA No. 24409 of 2013 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 his case examined himself as PW.1, examined the doctor as PW.2 and marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12. In rebuttal, the officer of the Insurance Company was examined as RW.1, and marked 4 documents as Exs.R1 to R4. The tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition vide judgment dated 27.11.2012. 8. The petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, filed this instant appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the Insurance Company. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11693 MFA No. 24409 of 2013 10. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner met with an accident, and sustained a grievous injuries in the road traffic accident. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle, produced a charge sheet marked as Ex.P5. The Tribunal has recorded its finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle, however, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving license. He also submits that the motorcycle was insured with the insurance company. The Tribunal should have dismissed the claim petition against the insurance company, and allowed the claim petition in part. On the contrary, the claim petition was dismissed in its entirety. He also submits that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company as of the date of the accident, and there is a contract - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11693 MFA No. 24409 of 2013 between the insurance company and the owner. He therefore, submits that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner by paying the compensation to the petitioner at the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the motorcycle. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. She submits that the owner has entrusted the motorcycle to the person who did not possess a valid and effective driving license. There is a breach of policy condition. The Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11693 MFA No. 24409 of 2013 13. The point, that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation and the liability. 14. There is no dispute that the petitioner met with an accident, and sustained injuries in the road traffic accident. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle, the petitioner produced a certified copy of a charge sheet marked as Ex.P5, which discloses that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. The Tribunal was justified in answering issue No.1 in the affirmative. Reg. Liability: 15. The insurance company has taken a specific defense in the statement of objections that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. As of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11693 MFA No. 24409 of 2013 date of the accident, the policy was valid. The owner of the motorcycle was arrayed as respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. The insurance company has taken all the measures regarding driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle, by issuing notice to respondent No.1/ owner calling upon the owner, to produce the driving license of the rider of the motorcycle. Despite the service of a notice, the owner did not furnish the driving license of the rider of the motorcycle. The tribunal was justified in drawing adverse inference against the owner of the offending vehicle, and held that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident and there is a breach of policy conditions. 16. The tribunal should have dismissed the claim petition against the insurance company, on the ground that there is a breach of policy condition and should have - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11693 MFA No. 24409 of 2013 allowed the claim petition against the owner of the motorcycle. On the contrary, the tribunal has dismissed the claim petition in its entirety. The Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim petition in its entirety. The owner of the motorcycle is liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioner. The said aspect was not adequately considered by the tribunal and committed an error in dismissing the claim petition. Reg. Quantum of compensation: 17. In so far as quantum of compensation is concerned; to prove the income, the petitioner has not produced any records of income proof. In the absence of income proof, this court assesses the notional income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. The accident occurred in 2011. The petitioner was aged 52 years old as of the date of the accident, therefore, the multiplier applicable to his age - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11693 MFA No. 24409 of 2013 group is ‘11’. The Doctor has opined that the petitioner has suffered 35% permanent physical disability. This court, considering the medical records, assesses the disability at 10% to whole body. 18. Thus, considering the evidence of the doctor, and medical records, this court assess the compensation under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads of compensation Compensation awarded in Rs. By this Court 1 Loss of future earning due disability (Rs.6,000/-x12x11x10%) 79,200 2 Pain and suffering 30,000 3 Food, Nourishment, and Attendant charges 20,000 4 Loss of Amenities 25,000 5 Medical and other expenses 40,000 6 Loss of income during the laid up period (Rs.6,000 x 2) 12,000 Total compensation Rs.2,06,200/- Therefore, the petitioner in entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 2,06,200/-. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11693 MFA No. 24409 of 2013 19. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 27.11.2012 passed in MVC No.1794/2011 is partly set aside. iii. The claim petition filed against the owner of the motorcycle is allowed. iv. The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,06,200/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization of amount. v. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and recover the same from the owner of the motorcycle in accordance with law. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11693 MFA No. 24409 of 2013 vi. The petitioner is not entitled to interest for the delayed period of 266 days as per the order dated 21.06.2016. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE SKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5