- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4300 MFA No. 102486 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102486 OF 2014 (MV-D) BETWEEN: SHRI. GAJENDRA S/O. LAXMAN BEKANALKAR, AGE 53 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & MILK VENDING, (NOW NILL), R/O. MALLIKARJUN ONI, MURGOD, TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. ASGAR ALI S/O. APPASAB KADABI, (OWNER OF MINI DOOR RICKSHAW) SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 1A. SMT. SHABIRA W/O. ASGAR ALI KADABI, AGE 40 YRS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. C/O. GANGADHAR BADIGER HOUSE, DESHNUR CHAWL, A/P: BAILHONGAL TALUK, DIST: BELGAUM. 1B. KUMARI HEENAKOUSAR D/O. ASGAR ALI KADABI, AGE 21 YRS, OCC: STUDENT, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4300 MFA No. 102486 of 2014 R/O. C/O. GANGADHAR BADIGER HOUSE, DESHNUR CHAWL, A/P: BAILHONGAL TALUK, DIST: BELGAUM. 1C. KUMAR ASIF S/O. ASGAR ALI KADABI, AGE 20 YRS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. C/O. GANGADHAR BADIGER HOUSE, DESHNUR CHAWL, A/P: BAILHONGAL TALUK, DIST: BELGAUM. 1D. SMT. BANUBI W/O. APPASAB KADABI, AGE 68 YRS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GUNDLOOR CHAWL, WARD NO.1, A/P: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1A TO R1D HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACT COURT-I, AND ADDITIONAL MACT BELGAUM IN M.V.C NO.1299 OF 2008 DATED 07.05.2014 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4300 MFA No. 102486 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. This is a claimant’s appeal against the judgment and award dated 07.05.2014 in MVC No.1299/2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court – I and Addl.MACT, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short) seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsels for both the parties. 3. Fact of the accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant are not in dispute. Therefore there is no need to re-consider the findings of the Tribunal on the said facts. The only question to be considered in this case is, “whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation”. 4. The Tribunal has assessed income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/- per month, assessed disability at 8% to the whole body, his age was taken as 47 years & - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4300 MFA No. 102486 of 2014 applied multiplier as 13 and awarded compensation of Rs.56,160/- towards loss of future income. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that according to the evidence of PW2-the doctor, claimant has been suffering from permanent disability to the right upper limb to an extent of 25% and 15% to the whole body. It is stated that PW2 is the treated doctor, therefore, the said disability may be considered. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that disability to the right upper limb stated by PW2 is 25%. It is settled law that 1/3rd of the said disability to a particular limb will be considered as disability to the whole body. Calculating the same, the Tribunal has considered disability at 8% and the same may be accepted. 7. Looking to the injuries sustained by the claimant i.e., fracture of styloid process radius (R) fracture of transverse process (R) L-1 vertebra and looking to the evidence of PW2, the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side. It shall be taken at 10% to the whole body. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4300 MFA No. 102486 of 2014 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded under other heads, are also on lower side, which needs to be enhanced. 9. The Tribunal has awarded the following amount of compensation by the impugned judgment: 1. Loss of future income : Rs. 56,160.00 2. Pain and suffering : Rs. 40,000.00 3. Loss of future amenities : Rs. 15,000.00 4. Loss of expectancy of life : Rs. 10,000.00 5. Medical expenses : Rs. 5,500.00 6. Conveyance & Nourishment : Rs. 5,000.00 7. Loss of income during laid up period : Rs. 9,000.00 Rs.1,40,660.00 10. Looking to the Tribunal’s judgment as well as considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, treatment taken, his age and occupation etc., re- calculation of the compensation is required. 11. Accordingly the said compensation is re- calculated and the following amount is awarded under each head: 1. Loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability (Rs.4500/-x12x13x10%) : Rs. 70,200.00 2. Pain and suffering : Rs. 40,000.00 3. Loss of future amenities : Rs. 30,000.00 4. Loss of expectancy of life : Rs. 10,000.00 5. Medical expenses : Rs. 5,500.00 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4300 MFA No. 102486 of 2014 6. Conveyance, Nourishment, attendant charges & special diet : Rs. 20,000.00 7. Loss of income during laid up period : Rs. 13,500.00 Rs.1,89,200.00 12. The claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.48,200/- (Rs.1,89,200/- less Rs.1,41,000/-). 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident but in view of settled law of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs.Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 and other cases, holding of LMV driving licence of non-transport vehicle can drive LMV transport vehicle without endorsement, could be considered as valid licence. Therefore, the insurance company be made liable to pay the said amount of compensation. 14. The Tribunal relying on earlier judgment held that insurance company shall pay the amount of compensation and recover it from the owner of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4300 MFA No. 102486 of 2014 vehicle. Admittedly driver of offending vehicle had licence to drive LMV vehicle. At the time of accident he was driving transport vehicle (goods vehicle). Without special endorsement in the D.L., the Tribunal considering earlier judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the D.L. held by the driver was not valid. And directed the insurer to pay the amount and recover the same from owner of the vehicle. In the case of Mukund Dewangan referred supra, it is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the driver holding licence to drive Light Motor vehicle can driver LMV transport vehicle. Hence there is no violation of policy conditions. In view of the changed circumstance, respondent No.2 insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner. Accordingly respondent No.2 is directed to pay the same. 15. For the aforesaid discussions, I pass the following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4300 MFA No. 102486 of 2014 ii. The judgment and award dated 07.05.2014 in MVC No.1299/2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court – I and Addl.MACT, Belgaum is modified. iii. The appellant is entitled for enhanced amount of Rs.48,200/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. iv. The appellant is also entitled interest on the said enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till recovery of the enhanced amount of compensation. v. Respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the said amount of compensation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. vi. The amount of compensation awarded is meager, therefore entire enhanced amount with interest shall be released in favour of the appellant. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE KGK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42