- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1374 MFA No. 23100 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 23099 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23100 OF 2012 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23099 OF 2012 IN M.F.A. NO.23100 OF 2012 BETWEEN: SANNEPPA S/O. SAKRAPPA, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: MILK VENDING AND COW HERD, R/O: CHIKKA BENAKAL, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. …APPELLANT (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR P.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND 1. MUTTAPPA S/O. YALAGUDADAPPA NATLKAR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF TEMPO TRAX BEARING NO.KA-28/M-2587, R/O: HUVINAHIPPARAGI, TQ: BASAVANABAGEWADI, DIST: BIJAPUR. 2. ANNAPPA S/O. YAMANAPPA ALOOR, AGE: 49 YEARS, R/O: HUNASIHAL, TQ: BASAVANABAGEWADI, DIST: BIJAPUR, OWNER OF TEMPO TRAX BEARING NO.KA-28/M-2587. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GANDHI CHOUK, RAICHUR, DIST: RAICHUR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1-HELD SUFFICIENT; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PLEASED TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18-10-2010 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1374 MFA No. 23100 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 23099 of 2012 JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, GANGAVATHI, IN MVC NO.184/2009, BY FIXING THE LIABILITY ON ALL THE RESPONDENTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN M.F.A. NO.23099 OF 2012 BETWEEN: VIRUPANNA S/O. BHIMAPPA, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: MILK VENDING AND COW HERD, R/O: CHIKKA BENAKAL, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. …APPELLANT (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR P.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND 1. MUTTAPPA S/O. YALAGUDADAPPA NATLKAR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF TEMPO TRAX BEARING NO.KA-28/M-2587, R/O: HUVINAHIPPARAGI, TQ: BASAVANABAGEWADI, DIST: BIJAPUR. 2. ANNAPPA S/O. YAMANAPPA ALOOR, AGE: 49 YEARS, R/O: HUNASIHAL, TQ: BASAVANABAGEWADI, DIST: BIJAPUR, OWNER OF TEMPO TRAX BEARING NO.KA-28/M-2587. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GANDHI CHOUK, RAICHUR, DIST: RAICHUR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ASHOK R.KALYANSHEETY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. C.V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1-SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PLEASED TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18-10-2010 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, GANGAVATHI, IN MVC NO.148/2009, BY FIXING THE LIABILITY ON ALL THE RESPONDENTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1374 MFA No. 23100 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 23099 of 2012 THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) Though these appeals are listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are taken up for final disposal. 2. These two appeals are filed by the claimants in MVC Nos.148 and 184 of 2009 challenging the judgment and award dated 18.10.2010 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Gangavathi, seeking enhancement of compensation as well as modification of liability fastened on the Insurance Company. 3. The factum of accident, death of cow and cow calf and injuries sustained by the claimants are not in dispute. The dispute is with regard to liability to be fastened whether on the owner of offending vehicle or on the insurance company. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1374 MFA No. 23100 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 23099 of 2012 IN MFA NO.23100/2012 4. It is the case of the claimants that on 26.02.2009, one cow and one cow calf are died in the accident and therefore, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.22,000/- in MVC No.184/2009. It is stated that the cow is a milk yielding cow having calf died in the accident. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for death of cow and cow calf is lesser. Therefore, the same is required to be enhanced by modifying the judgment and award. Hence, the claimant is entitled to additional global compensation of Rs.20,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. IN MFA NO.23099/2012 5. In the present case, from the medical evidence on record, it is proved that the claimant had suffered following injuries: i. Fracture to the right neck of femur. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1374 MFA No. 23100 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 23099 of 2012 ii. Fracture of middle 1/3rd clavicle. 6. The tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards pain and suffering. 34,000/- 2. Towards medical expenses. 3,000/- 3. Towards loss of amenities. 5,000/- 4. Towards loss of income during treatment period. 9,000/- 5. Towards conveyance. 3,000/- 6. Towards loss of earning capacity. 1,16,640/- Total: 1,70,640/- 7. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, compensation awarded by tribunal is lesser side. Therefore, the same is required to be enhanced by modifying the judgment and award. 8. Considering the injuries sustained, a compensation of Rs.45,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities are awarded. The compensation awarded towards medical expenses and hospital charges of Rs.3,000/- is as per the actual bills and receipts produced; therefore, the same is kept intact. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1374 MFA No. 23100 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 23099 of 2012 Further, Rs.15,000/- towards incidental expenses like food, nourishment, traveling, attendant charges, etc., and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period for a period of three months, is awarded. 9. The doctor has stated that the claimant had suffered 18% of physical disability to the whole body. Therefore, considering the evidence of the doctor, 15% functional disability is taken into consideration as the claimant had suffered fracture to the right neck of femur and fracture of middle 1/3rd clavicle. The accident is caused in the year 2009. Therefore, notional income of Rs.5,000/- per month is taken into consideration, which is recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority. The claimant was aged 20 years at the time of accident. Therefore appropriate applicable multiplier is 18. Hence, loss of future income due to disability is hereby reassessed and quantified as Rs.1,62,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 15% x 12 x 18). - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1374 MFA No. 23100 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 23099 of 2012 10. Thus, the claimant is entitled for total compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards injuries, pain and suffering. 45,000/- 2. Towards medical expenses. 3,000/- 3. Towards loss of amenities. 5,000/- 4. Towards loss of income during laid up period and medical treatment period. 15,000/- 5. Towards incidental charges like attendant charges, food, nourishment, conveyance, etc.,. 15,000/- 6. Towards loss of future earning capacity. 1,62,000/- Total: 2,45,000/- 11. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization, as against Rs.1,70,640/- awarded by the Tribunal. 12. The issue involved in the present appeal is no more res-integra in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 Supreme - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1374 MFA No. 23100 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 23099 of 2012 Court Cases 663. According to which, a person who is holding driving licence to drive the LMV (non transport) can also drive the LMV (transport). In the present case, the offending vehicle is Tempo Trax is light motor vehicle (transport). The driver was holding driving licence to drive the LMV (non transport) who can also drive the said vehicle. The Tribunal has fastened liability on the owner of the vehicle by exonerating the insurance company on the reason that the driver was not holding valid, specific and effective driving licence. Therefore, the insurance company is liable to be indemnify the owner and to pay the compensation to the claimant. Hence, the insurance company shall pay the compensation to the claimant as above discussed. 13. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeals are allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 18.10.2010 passed in MVC Nos.148 and 184 of 2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Gangavathi, stands modified. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1374 MFA No. 23100 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 23099 of 2012 iii) The claimant in MFA No.23100/2012 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.42,000/- and claimant in MFA No.23099/2012 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. iv) The claimants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 540 days in filing the appeal. v) The insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. vi) Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment. vii) No order as to costs. viii) Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31