- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9631 MFA No. 105769 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 105769 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LALITA W/O HANUMANTAPPA KOPPAL AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/AT. CHIKKASINDOGI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL 583231. 2. FAKEERSWAMI S/O HANUMANTAPPA KOPPAL, AGE. 04 YEARS, R/AT. H CHIKKASINDOGI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL 583231 …APPELLANTS (BY SRIYUTHS. HIRANKUMAR PATEL AND GOURISHANKAR MOT, ADVS) AND: 1. MR. AHAMMED SADIK S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/AT. D.NO. 11-47/1, BERMER GUDDE HOUSE, MOGURU VILLAGE, POST MALALLI, TQ. MANGALURE, DIST. DAKSHINA KANNADA. 2. MAHAMMED RAFIQ S/O LATE ABBAS AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. SCOOTER AND BUS DRIVER, R/A. D.NO. GL19-108-2, 9TH BLOCK, KATIPALLA, SURTHKAL MANGALURU CITY, TQ. MANGALURE, DIST. DAKSHINA KANNADA 3. THE DIVISION MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., VINAYAKA B V Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Date: 2025.08.20 15:25:21 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9631 MFA No. 105769 of 2024 MICRO OFFICE, (MUTTAGI COMPLEX), KUSTAGI ROAD, KOPPALA -583231. (POLICE NO. 07290/3121P107827602 VALID FROM 04-11-2021 To 03-11-2022) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADV FOR R3, NOTICE TO R1 & R2 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.369/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, AT KOPPAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the claimants, challenging the judgment and award dated 30.09.2024 passed in MVC No.369 of 2022 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Koppal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Tribunal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9631 MFA No. 105769 of 2024 3. Brief rights leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. The claimants filed a claim petition claiming compensation on account of the death of Hanumantappa, who died on 17.03.2022 due to the grievous injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident that occurred on 14.03.2022 while he was walking on the Kattipalya-Suratkal road. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the Scooter bearing Reg No.KA/19-CH-7624. It is contended that the deceased was aged about 29 years, and he was working as a building construction labourer and was earning ₹15,000/- per month. It is contented that the claimants spent a huge amount for funeral and travelling expenses. Due to the untimely death of Hanumantappa, the claimants have suffered financial loss, Mental agony, etc., and hence, they pray for compensation. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9631 MFA No. 105769 of 2024 5. Respondent No.1 is the rider, respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the scooter in question bearing Reg.No.KA.19-EH.7624 6. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a written statement. Respondent No.1 filed a memo adopting a written statement filed by respondent No.2. 7. Respondent No.2 in his written statement denied the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself and contended that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 and the policy was in force as of the date of the accident. The rider of the scooter had a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident, and there is no violation of policy conditions. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9631 MFA No. 105769 of 2024 8. Respondent No.3 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition, and it is contended that the rider of the scooter was not possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.3. 9. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 10. To substantiate the case of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1, and 10 documents was mentioned as Ex.P1 to P10. In rebuttal, on behalf of R3, a witness was examined as RW1 and two documents were marked as Ex. R1 and R2. 11. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with cost, and awarded the cost of Rs.29,26,400/- vide judgment dated 03.09.2024 and dismissed the claim petition against the insurance - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9631 MFA No. 105769 of 2024 company i.e., Respondent No.3. The Tribunal directed the owner of the scooter i.e., Respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.29,26,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 12. The claimants, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.369 of 2022, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 13. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties to the appeal. 14. The learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the owner of the scooter i.e., Respondent No.2. He submits that respondent No.3 is the insurer of the scooter. The vehicle was insured with respondent No.3, and respondent No.3 is liable to indemnify the owner. He submits that, the insurance policy was in force as of the date of the accident. Hence, the Tribunal could have directed the insurance company - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9631 MFA No. 105769 of 2024 to pay the compensation, and recover the same from the owner of the scooter, in accordance with law. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company, i.e., Respondent No. 2 submits that there is a breach of policy conditions and the rider of the scooter was not possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. He submits that the Tribunal was therefore justified in dismissing the claim petition against the insurance company and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 16. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 17. There is no dispute regarding the death of Hanumantappa in the road traffic accident that occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the scooter bearing Reg No.KA-119-EH-7624 by its rider - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9631 MFA No. 105769 of 2024 and a Charge-sheet was also filed against the rider of the scooter. The claimants have proved that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the scooter in question. 18. However, admittedly, the rider of the scooter did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident, as such there is a breach of policy conditions. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the rider of the scooter did not have a license to ride the scooter as of the date of the accident and Respondent No.3 i.e., the insurer of the scooter cannot be held liable for the compensation. 19. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Swaran Singh and others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 has held that the claimants should not be allowed to suffer and run about to release the compensation awarded and that, it is in the fitness of things that the Insurance - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9631 MFA No. 105769 of 2024 Company in such cases should first pay and then recover the amount. 20. In view of the aforesaid proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the instant case, the insurer of the scooter i.e., Respondent No.3 shall make the payment of compensation awarded as per the directions contained in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, to the claimants. The judgment and award of the Tribunal requires modification in this regard. 21. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.29,26,400/- to the claimants. 22. In the absence of proof of income of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the deceased’s income at Rs.14,750/- notionally for the accident of 2022, as per the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, and added to it, 40% of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9631 MFA No. 105769 of 2024 same, towards future prospects and has further deducted 1/3rd of the same towards his living expenses, as the deceased was survived by two legal heirs/dependents. 23. By applying the appropriate multiplier i.e., ‘17’ applicable to the age of the deceased (29 years), the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.28,08,400/- [Rs.13,766/- x 12 x ‘17’] towards loss of dependency. 24. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.88,000/- [Rs.44,000/- x 2] towards loss of consortium and a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. The Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.96,000/- (48,000 x 2) towards loss of consortium, and a sum of Rs.36,000/- (18,000/- +18,000/-) - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9631 MFA No. 105769 of 2024 towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. The Tribunal did not take into account the hiked value @ 10% of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses as per the chart issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. 25. In all, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.29,26,400/- as compensation to the claimants, which, in my considered view, liable to be enhanced to the tune of Rs. 14,000/-. 26. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal requirest to be enhanced to Rs.29,40,400/-. 27. In the result, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9631 MFA No. 105769 of 2024 (iii) The claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.29,40,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization of the amount. (iv) Respondent No.3-insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation awarded, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. (v) The insurance company is at liberty to recover the said amount from the owner or the driver of the vehicle in question, in accordance with law. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27