- 1 - MFA No.100011/2019 C/W. MFA No.103211/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA M.F.A. NO.100011/2019 (MV) C/w. M.F.A. NO. 103211/2019 (MV) IN MFA NO.100011/2019: BETWEEN THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUBHASH ROAD, SANKESHWAR-591313, BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.Y. KATAGI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SHRI. PRAKASH S/O. SHIDALING HUKKERI, AGE 53 YEARS, R/O. EXAMBA, TAL: CHIKODI-591201, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI. LAXMAN S/O. APPASAB PATIL, AGE 53 YEARS, R/O. MALIKWAD, TAL: CHIKODI-591201, DIST: BELAGAVI. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. GIREESH C. KATTIMANI, ADV. FOR R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD: 04/09/2018 PASSED BY THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - MFA No.100011/2019 C/W. MFA No.103211/2019 AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ADDL. MACT BELAGAVI, SITTING AT: CHIKODI IN M.V.C. NO.960/2016 AND ETC. IN MFA NO 103211/2019 BETWEEN SHRI. PRAKASH S/O. SHIDALING HUKKERI, AGE 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & CONTRACTOR, NOW NIL, R/O. EXAMBA, TAL: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-593107. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SHRI. LAXMAN S/O. APPASAB PATIL, AGE 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. MALIKWAD, TAL: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-593107. 2. THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SUBASH ROAD, SANKESHWAR-591313. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.GIREESH C. KATTIMANI, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. M. Y. KATAGI, ADV. FOR R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, SITTING AT CHIKODI, IN M.V.C. NO.960/2016 DATED 04/09/2018 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 19.03.2025 FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - MFA No.100011/2019 C/W. MFA No.103211/2019 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. The insurer – respondent No.1 has filed an appeal in MFA No.100011 of 2019 and the claimant has filed an appeal in MFA No.103211 of 2019, challenging the judgment and award dated 4th September 2018, passed in MVC No.960 of 2016 by the VII-Addl. District and Sessions Judge & Addl. MACT, Belagavi, sitting at Chikodi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). Both the appeals are taken up together for disposal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimant is that, on 24.02.2016 at about 10:30 p.m., while he was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23/S-1307 from Examba to Rama Nagar Extension, he met with an accident near Lingeshwar Temple due to the rash and negligent driving of a tractor bearing registration No.KA-23/TB-0166 and trailer bearing registration Nos.KA-23/TB-167 and KA- - 4 - MFA No.100011/2019 C/W. MFA No.103211/2019 23/TB-168 (for short “the offending vehicle”) by its driver. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Hence, he prayed for an award of compensation. 4. Respondent No.1, the owner of the vehicle, filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. He further submitted that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2, and in the event compensation is awarded, respondent No.2 may be directed to pay the same. 5. Respondent No.2 denied the averments made in the claim petition and further stated that liability, if any, is restricted to the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. It was also contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the claimant, who was not holding valid and effective driving licence and lacked the requisite knowledge to ride the motorcycle. It was further alleged that he was under intoxication at the time of the accident. Hence, the accident occurred solely due to his own negligence. On these - 5 - MFA No.100011/2019 C/W. MFA No.103211/2019 grounds, respondent No.2 prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. The Tribunal framed necessary issues based on the rival contentions of the parties. 7. In support of his case, the claimant examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked seventeen documents as Exs.P1 to P17. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 got marked two documents as Exs.R1 and R2. 8. After hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded the compensation under the following heads: 1. Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/- 2. Medicine and hospital charges Rs.3,00,000/- 3. Nourishment charges Rs.5,000/- 4. Attendant and conveyance Rs.5,000/- 5. Loss of income during treatment period Rs.8,000/- 6. Loss of future income Rs.2,48,480/- 7. Loss of amenities, future unhappiness Rs.40,000/- Total Rs.6,46,480/- 9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, both the claimant and the insurer preferred appeals. - 6 - MFA No.100011/2019 C/W. MFA No.103211/2019 10. The contentions of the insurer are that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive; that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident; and that he was carrying two trailers, which is not permissible under Rule 225 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short “the Rules, 1989”). It is further contended that the liability of the insurer is restricted to the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance, including the requirement that the driver possess a valid and effective driving licence. It is further contended that as per the medical records, the claimant had fallen from his motorcycle and sustained injuries, and not as a result of the alleged accident involving the offending vehicle. On these grounds, the insurer prayed for the appeal to be allowed and the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal to be set aside. 11. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It was argued that the claimant is a contractor, but - 7 - MFA No.100011/2019 C/W. MFA No.103211/2019 the Tribunal erroneously assessed his income as that of a coolie. The claimant owns agricultural lands, which was not considered while assessing his income. PW2, in his evidence, stated that the claimant is suffering from a permanent disability to the extent of 99%, but the Tribunal considered the disability to be only 33%, which is erroneous. It was further contended that the compensation under other heads is neither just nor reasonable. Therefore, the claimant prayed for enhancement of the compensation. 12. Based on the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occured due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver? (ii) Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper? - 8 - MFA No.100011/2019 C/W. MFA No.103211/2019 RE.: Point No. (i): 13. The facts of the case have been narrated by the Tribunal. The primary contention of the appellant, the insurer is that the claimant fell from his motorcycle, as per Ex.P4, and therefore he did not sustain injuries due to the involvement of the offending vehicle. However, in the cross- examination, the said suggestion was not put to PW1. 14. Ex.P10, the wound certificate issued by the KLE Hospital, Belagavi, mentions a history of injury as “fall from two-wheeler” at around 10:00 p.m. on 24.02.2016. The claimant, however, has produced the complete medical records from KLE Hospital, which indicate that the accident occurred when the claimant, while riding his motorcycle, was hit by the offending vehicle. Therefore, taking undue advantage of the reference made in Ex.P10, the insurer has been contending that the claimant merely fell from his motorcycle, without involvement of the offending vehicle. 15. While it may be true that the claimant fell from the motorcycle, the cause of the fall from the motorcycle - 9 - MFA No.100011/2019 C/W. MFA No.103211/2019 due to hit by the offending vehicle is not clearly mentioned at Ex.P10. Therefore, it appears that respondent No.2, the insurer has taken the said defence to challenge the accident. The entire medical records from KLE Hospital, Belagavi supports the collusion between his motorcycle and the offending vehicle i.e., tractor and trailers. Therefore, the contention of the insurer is not acceptable. 16. It is contended that the claimant did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to ride the motorcycle on the date of the accident. Learned counsel for the insurer relied on Ex.R1, which indicates that the licence of the claimant had expired in the year 2015, whereas the accident occurred on 24.02.2016. During the cross- examination, PW1 admitted that he had not renewed the said licence. It is evident that the claimant did not possess a valid diving licence at the time of the accident. On that basis it is contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant. However, this contention is not acceptable for two reasons. Firstly, it is an admitted fact that the claimant was holding driving licence from - 10 - MFA No.100011/2019 C/W. MFA No.103211/2019 06.08.2001 to 11.08.2015. In his cross-examination, PW1 admitted that he had not renewed the licence. Thus, while the licence had expired prior to the accident, this does not mean that the claimant had lost the ability or knowledge to ride the motorcycle. Riding a motorcycle without a valid licence may amount to a violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the mere expiry of a driving licence does not automatically indicate incompetence or a lack of riding skills. Secondly, there is no evidence on record to establish that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant. Further, the owner and insurer of the motorcycle ridden by the claimant have not been made parties to the present case. Therefore, the absence of a valid and effective driving licence, by itself, is not sufficient to conclude that the claimant was negligent in causing the accident. 17. In the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. Surinder Singh & Others1 the Hon’ble Apex Court held 1 AIR 2008 SC 2405 - 11 - MFA No.100011/2019 C/W. MFA No.103211/2019 that merely not holding a valid and effective driving licence cannot, by itself, be a ground to presume that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the rider of the vehicle. The principles of law laid down in the said judgment are squarely applicable to the present case. Therefore, the mere fact that the claimant did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident does not establish that he was negligent in causing the accident. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant, the insurer contended that there was a violation of Rule 225 of the Rules, 1989 by the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., tractor and trailers. It was argued that a tractor is not permitted to tow two trailers on a public road, and doing so constitutes a violation of Rule 225 of the Rules, 1989. To appreciate it, it is necessary to refer to the text of Rule 225 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, which reads as under: “225. Restriction on number of trailers to be drawn.- (1) No tractor shall draw more than three trailers. (2) No tractor shall draw on a public road,- (i) exceeding half matric ton in weight unladen and fitted with solid steel - 12 - MFA No.100011/2019 C/W. MFA No.103211/2019 wheels less than 60 centimetres in diameter; and (ii) a disc harrow without trolley wheels used as training implements behind a tractor. (3) No other goods vehicle shall draw more than one trailer.” 19. According to Rule 225(1) of the Rules, 1989, a tractor is permitted to draw up to three trailers, while operating on a public road. Therefore, the act of drawing two trailers at the time of the accident does not constitute a violation of Rule 225 of the Rules, 1989. Hence, the contention raised by the appellant, the insurer in this regard is not acceptable. 20. The Tribunal after appreciating both oral and documentary evidence, rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. There are no valid grounds to interfere with the said findings. The contention raised by the insurer, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, are not sustainable. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of the offending - 13 - MFA No.100011/2019 C/W. MFA No.103211/2019 vehicle and not due to any of the acts of the rider of the motorcycle. In light of the above discussion, point No.(i) is answered in the negative. RE.: Point No. (ii): 21. Learned counsel for the claimant contended that the claimant was aged about 50 years at the time of accident. As per Ex.R1, the claimant’s date of birth is 12.08.1965. Therefore, as on the date of accident, the claimant had completed 50 years of age. This fact is not in dispute. 22. Learned counsel for the claimant contended that the claimant was earning Rs.3,00,000/- p.a. from his occupation as a Contractor and through agriculture work. However, no documentary evidence has been produced to support his claim. It is not the case of the claimant that he sold his agricultural property or left it uncultivated after sustaining injures in the accident. At the most, he may have had to engage the services of lobourer or coolie to maintain the land. If the claimant was really earning more than Rs.3,00,000/- p.a. as a contractor, he would likely be an income tax assessee; however, no Income - 14 - MFA No.100011/2019 C/W. MFA No.103211/2019 Tax records have been produced. Therefore, it appears that just to claim more compensation, he is contending that he was a contractor and agriculturist thereby earning more than Rs.3,00,000/- p.a. 23. Since the claimant was unable to establish his income through reliable evidence, and considering that he was about 50 years of age at the time of the accident and was hale and healthy prior to the incident, it is reasonable to infer that he was earning to support his livelihood. Therefore, a notional income must be assessed. The Tribunal assessed the notional income at Rs.8,000/- p.m. However, as per the income chart prepared by the KSLSA, the notional income of a victim of an accident of the relevant period is Rs.8,750/- p.m. Same could be applied to the facts of present case. 24. Much emphasis was laid on the issue of loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability. The claimant examined PW2, who is not the treated Doctor; the claimant visited him solely for obtaining a disability - 15 - MFA No.100011/2019 C/W. MFA No.103211/2019 certificate. While there is no hard and fast rule mandating that a disability certificate issued by a non-treating Doctor must be discarded, such evidence must be carefully appreciated. According to PW2, the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 65% in the right upper limb and 34% in the right lower limb. Upon examining the impugned judgment and award, it appears that the Tribunal has considered 1/3rd of the said disability, which is not in accordance with the norms laid down under the Notification issued by the Central Government. Considering the disability stated by PW2, the difficulties narrated by PW1, and the medical records, it is reasonable to conclude that the claimant is suffering from permanent disability to the extent of 25% to the whole body. 25. As stated above, the claimant was 51 years old at the time of accident. Therefore, undisputedly the appropriate multiplier applicable is 11. Based on the notional income and the extent of permanent disability as discussed in the preceding paragraph, the compensation - 16 - MFA No.100011/2019 C/W. MFA No.103211/2019 under the head 'Loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability' is to be assessed accordingly. 26. The claimant underwent surgery and was admitted to KLE Hospital on 25.02.2016. Although Ex.P4 does not specify the date of discharge, the evidence indicates that the claimant was discharged from the Hospital on 12.03.2016, meaning he was an inpatient for approximately 15 days. It appears that the claimant underwent two surgeries, and implants were fixed. Regarding the injuries to his right lower limb specifically the fracture of the femur, the claimant sustained the following injuries: “1) RT. GLENOID PROCESS FRACTURE WITH FRACTURE OF BODY OF SCAPULA; 2) RT FEMUR FRACTURE (COMMINUTED); 3) RT HAND 2ND, 4TH METACARPAL FRACTURE WITH TRAPEZIUM K – TRAPEZIUM FRACTURE. 4) RT. BRACHIAL PLEXUS INJURY. 5) CLW OVER RT. AXILLA. 6) SUBDURAL HYGROMA 7) ALCOHOL WITHDRAWAL SYNDROME - 17 - MFA No.100011/2019 C/W. MFA No.103211/2019 27. Considering the nature of the injuries, the treatment undergone as an inpatient, and the follow up treatment thereafter, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be on the lower side. PW2 has stated that the claimant is required to undergo another surgery for the removal of the implants, a factor the Tribunal did not take into account when awarding compensation. Therefore, compensation for this head should also be awarded. Based on the aforementioned discussion, the claimant is entitled to the following amount of compensation: 1. Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.3,00,000/- 3. Attendant charges, diet & conveyance Rs.25,000/- 4. Loss of income during laid up period (Rs.8,750/- x 6 months) Rs.52,500/- 5. Loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability (Rs.8,750/- x 12 x 11 x 25%) Rs.2,88,750/- 6. Loss of amenities and comfort of life Rs.75,000/- 7. Future medical expenses Rs.25,000/- Total Rs.7,91,250/- Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.6,46,480/- Enhanced Compensation Rs.1,44,770/- rounded of to Rs.1,45,000/- - 18 - MFA No.100011/2019 C/W. MFA No.103211/2019 28. The insurer has failed to demonstrate that there was a breach of the conditions of the policy by respondent No.1. The insurance policy, which was in force at the time of the accident, has been produced as Ex.R2. Therefore, both respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the the enhanced compensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. Accordingly, point No.(ii) is answered. 29. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The appeals filed by the insurer as well as the claimant are allowed in part; (ii) The judgment and award dated 4th September 2018, passed in MVC No.960 of 2016 by the VII-Addl. District and Sessions Judge & Addl. MACT, Belagavi, sitting at Chikodi is modified; (iii) The claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- in addition - 19 - MFA No.100011/2019 C/W. MFA No.103211/2019 to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. (iv) Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of the drawing up of award. (v) The order of deposit and release of the amount of compensation shall be as ordered by the Tribunal. (vi) The Registry is directed to send back the TCR along with a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE VNP /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9