- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11692 MFA No. 23710 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101400 of 2014 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. 23710 OF 2013 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101400 OF 2014 IN MFA NO.23710/2013 BETWEEN: SHRIRAM GEN. INS. CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BELGAUM DIVISION, BELGAUM, NOW REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, E-8, EPIP, RIICO, SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTAN-302 022. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. YALLAWWA W/O. SIDDAPPA JADER, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE NOW NIL, R/O. TEGGIHALLI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. SAKRAPPA GATTI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. AT. POST: CHINCHANUR, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (A TO D) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31ST JANUARY 2013 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-IV, BELGAUM AT BELGAUM IN M.V.C NO.1006/2012 ON THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND AMONG OTHER GROUNDS AND TO PASS MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.17 15:46:07 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11692 MFA No. 23710 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101400 of 2014 SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN MFA NO.101400/2014 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. YALLAWWA S/O. SIDDAPPA JEDAR AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, NOW NILL, R/O. TEGGIHAL, SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. SINCE DEAD R/BY LRS- 1A. SHIDDAPPA S/O. NEELAPPA JEDAR, AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TEGGIHAL, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 1B. SMT. SHANTA W/O. SHANKREPPA KITAGERI, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. TEGGIHAL, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 1C. PANDURANG S/O. SHIDDAPPA JEDAR AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. TEGGIHAL, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 1D. ARJUN S/O. SIDDAPPA JEDAR, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. TEGGIHAL, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11692 MFA No. 23710 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101400 of 2014 AND: 1. HANUMANTAPPA S/O. SAKREPPA GATTI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE COOLIE, AT POST: CHINCHANUR, TQ: RAMADURG, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. THE MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LID., E-8, EPIP, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTAN, PIN NO-302022. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-SERVED) THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-IV, BELGAUM, IN MVC NO.1006/2012 DATED 31.01.2012, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. These appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short), which arise out of the judgment and award dated 31.01.2013 passed in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11692 MFA No. 23710 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101400 of 2014 MVC No.1006/2012 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IV, Belgaum. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows: 3. On 28.07.2011, the petitioner was carrying the goods in an ape Auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-24/5262. The driver of the Auto rickshaw drove the vehicle at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner; as a result, the ape auto rickshaw toppled. Due to the impact, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner has spent a huge amount on medical and the other expenses. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11692 MFA No. 23710 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101400 of 2014 4. The owner of the vehicle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the Auto rickshaw possessed a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident, and the policy was valid. It is contended that in case the Tribunal concludes that the petitioner is entitled to compensation, a direction be issued to the insurance company to pay the compensation amount. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the offending vehicle. 5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the petitioner travelled as an unauthorized passenger in the offending vehicle. There is a breach of the policy conditions. It is also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11692 MFA No. 23710 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101400 of 2014 license as of the date of the accident. It is contended that no special premium was paid to cover the risk of death or bodily injury of the passenger. The Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount as claimed by the petitioner. Accordingly, 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 PW.2, examined 3 witnesses as PWs 1, 3 and 4, and marked 17 documents as Exs.P1 to P17. The officer of the Insurance Company was examined as RW.1, and marked 2 documents as Exs.R1 to R2. The tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 31.01.2013 and awarded the compensation of Rs 1,46,000/- to the petitioner. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11692 MFA No. 23710 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101400 of 2014 The owner and the insurance company were held jointly and severally liable and the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the compensation amount. 8. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1006/2012, preferred an appeal in MFA No.23710/2013 challenging the liability, and the petitioner, in MVC No.1006/2012, preferred an appeal in MFA No.101400/2014, seeking an enhancement of compensation. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the petitioner travelled as an unauthorized passenger. He submits that there is a breach of the policy conditions. The Insurance Company is not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11692 MFA No. 23710 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101400 of 2014 liable to pay the compensation claimed by the petitioner. To buttress his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate bench of this court in the Smt.Shaila and another vs. Irappa and another in MFA No.20721/2013, disposed of on 27.06.2025. He also submits that this court cannot direct the Insurance Company to pay the compensation at the first instance and recover the said amount. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference by this court. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of BALU KRISHNA CHAVAN VS. THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED AND OTHERS IN SLP(C) NO.33638/2017 disposed of on 03.11.2022. Accordingly, prays to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, and dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11692 MFA No. 23710 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101400 of 2014 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was travelling along with the goods in an offending vehicle. There is no breach of policy condition. The Tribunal has examined the said aspect adequately and has rightly saddled the liability jointly and severally on the owner of the offending vehicle and insurance company. He also submits that the tribunal has taken notional income of the petitioner at Rs.4,000/- and he submits that in the absence of income proof, the tribunal should have taken a notional income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident occurred in 2011. The tribunal should have taken a notional income at Rs.6,000/-, wherein the tribunal has taken the income at Rs.4,000/-, which is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the petitioner, and dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11692 MFA No. 23710 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101400 of 2014 12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The points that would arise for consideration are regarding the liability and quantum of compensation. 14. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the road traffic accident. The petitioner has produced a charge sheet marked as Ex.P11. The Tribunal, relying on Ex.P11 has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Rickshaw. I concur with the findings recorded by the tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11692 MFA No. 23710 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101400 of 2014 Reg. Liability: 15. The Insurance Company has taken a specific defense in a statement of objections that the petitioner was travelling in an offending vehicle as an unauthorized passenger, and no premium was paid; therefore, the policy does not cover. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay as there is a breach of policy conditions. Admittedly, the officer of the respondent- Insurance Company was examined as RW.1, who, in the course of cross-examination has admitted that the Insurance Company has appointed an Investigator to investigate the accident. He has submitted a report stating that the petitioner was travelling along with the goods. The said submission itself is sufficient to hold that the petitioner was travelling along with the goods. There is no breach of policy conditions as contended by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal was justified in fastening - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11692 MFA No. 23710 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101400 of 2014 the liability jointly and severally on the owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment regarding the fastening of the liability jointly and severally on the owner and the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. 16. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company relies on the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate bench in the case of Smt.Shaila (referred to supra). In the said case, the deceased petitioner was travelling as an unauthorized passenger without goods. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner was travelling along with goods. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company does not apply to the case on hand. 17. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also placed reliance on the judgment of BALU KRISHNA CHAVAN (referred to supra), wherein the Hon’ble - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11692 MFA No. 23710 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101400 of 2014 Apex Court held that the Insurance Company cannot be directed to pay the compensation amount and recover the same. The said judgment applies only in case, the claim petition is dismissed against the Insurance Company. Admittedly, in the instant case, the liability has been saddled jointly and severally on the owner and the Insurance Company of the offending rickshaw. In view of the above discussion, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel does not apply to the case on hand. In view of the same, the point regarding the liability is answered accordingly. Reg. quantum of compensation: 18. Insofar as the quantum of compensation, it is contended that the petitioner is an Agriculturist and used to earn Rs 2 lakhs per annum, and due to injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, she is unable to cultivate the land. To substantiate the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11692 MFA No. 23710 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101400 of 2014 claim of the petitioner, she has not produced any income proof. In the absence of income proof, the notional income has to be assessed as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident occurred in 2011. This court takes the notional income at Rs.6,000/-. 25% of the future prospects is to be added in view of the law laid down by the Honble Apex court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 i.e., (Rs.6000x25%) 1500 + 6000= Rs.7500/- p.a. Further, the petitioner also examined the doctor to prove the disability. The doctor has opined that the petitioner has suffered a 30% permanent disability and the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 10% which is on the lower side. This court, considering the evidence of the doctor and medical records, is of the opinion that permanent disability has to be reassessed at 15%. The age of the petitioner at the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11692 MFA No. 23710 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101400 of 2014 time of the accident was 46 years; therefore, the multiplier ‘13’ is applicable. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.175,500/- (Rs.7500 X 12 X 13 X 15%) under the head of ‘loss of future income’. 19. Insofar as the compensation awarded under the other heads, it is just and proper, and I do not find any error. In view of the same, the point regarding the quantum is answered accordingly. 20. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Appeal in MFA No. 23710/2013 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. ii. The Appeal in MFA No. 101400/2014 filed by the petitioner is allowed in part. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11692 MFA No. 23710 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 101400 of 2014 iii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified. iv. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,58,500/- as against Rs.1,46,000/-. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,12,500/-. 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 Judgment. vi. The amount in the deposit and TCR be transferred to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. vii. The petitioner is not entitled to the interest for the delayed period in MFA No.101400/2014. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE SKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4