- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12373 MFA No. 104441 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104441 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. RUDRAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA BELAWADI AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC. WATCHMAN, NOW NIL R/O. HARUGOPPA, TAL. SAVADATTI DIST. BELAGAVI, NOW R/AT. HANUMAN NAGAR NEAR RACE COURSE ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001 APPELLANT (BY SRI. YASH NADAKARNI, ADV FOR SRI. VITTHAL S TELI, ADV) AND: 1. BALAPPA B BUKKANATTI R/O A/P SHAHABANDAR TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591309 2. SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR, JAIPUR-302022 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADV FOR R1, SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADV FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:18.07.2016, PASSED IN MVC. NO.473/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, 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 : MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12373 MFA No. 104441 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the liability vide judgment and award dated 18.07.2016 passed in MVC No.473/2015 by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 21.02.2012, at 07:00 PM, the driver of the Mahindra Goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-24-3215 owned by respondent No.1 i.e.,Balappa and insured by respondent No.2 – the Insurance company drove the vehicle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-29-L-6917 ridden by the petitioner causing him grievous injuries. The petitioner filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12373 MFA No. 104441 of 2017 sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 3. The owner of the offending vehicle appeared through counsel; However, did not file a statement of objections. 4. The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. There is a breach of policy conditions. It is contended that there is contributory negligence. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, examined the doctor as PW.2, and marked 9 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-9. In rebuttal, the insurance - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12373 MFA No. 104441 of 2017 company examined its officer as RW.1 and marked 5 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-5. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs vide judgment dated 18.07.2016 and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,36,100/- along with interest at 9% and dismissed the claim petition against the insurance company. 8. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and liability, filed this appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the insurance company. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a LMV driving license. He submits that a person possessing an LMV license can drive a transport vehicle. To buttress is arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12373 MFA No. 104441 of 2017 3668. He also submits that the petitioner has examined the Doctor as PW.2 to prove the disability, wherein the doctor has assessed the disability at 45% to the whole body, whereas the Tribunal has taken the disability at 10% to the whole body, which is on the lower side. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are also on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. There is a breach of policy conditions and the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition against the insurance company. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this court. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12373 MFA No. 104441 of 2017 12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The points that would arise for consideration are regarding the liability and the 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 Tribunal, taking into consideration the charge sheet, has rightly recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 15. Regarding liability: The insurance company has taken a specific defense in the statement of objections that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident and produced the endorsement issued by the ARTO marked as Ex.R-5, which discloses that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a LMV driving license. The said issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12373 MFA No. 104441 of 2017 case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, in case a person possesses a LMV licence he is entitled to drive a transport vehicle and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount. The Tribunal without considering the said aspect committed an error in dismissing the claim petition against the insurance company. As of the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company, and there is no breach of policy conditions. The owner and the insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner. 16. Regarding the quantum: The petitioner contended that he was working as a watchman and earning Rs.7,500/- per month. To substantiate his contention, the petitioner has not produced any income proof. Admittedly, the accident occurred in 2012. This Court assesses the notional income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority i.e. Rs.6,500/-. The petitioner, to prove the disability, examined the Doctor was PW.2. He has - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12373 MFA No. 104441 of 2017 deposed that, he has examined the petitioner clinically and radiologically and opined that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability to an extent of 45% whereas the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 10% which is on the lower side. This Court re-assess the permanent disability at 15% i.e., 1/3rd of the disability assessed by the Doctor. The petitioner is aged about 28 years old as of the date of the accident. The multiplier applicable to the age group of the petitioner is 17. Thus, considering the evidence of PW-2 and the medical records, this Court reassess the compensation under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs. Compensation re-assessed by this Court Rs. 1 Pain and suffering 30,000/- 50,000/- 2 Loss of amenities 50,000/- 50,000/- 3 Loss of income during laid up period 4,500/- 19,500/- 4 Incidental charges 21,000/- 21,000/- 5 Loss of future earnings (6500x12x17x15%) 30,600/- 1,98,900/- TOTAL 1,36,100/- 3,39,400/- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12373 MFA No. 104441 of 2017 17. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.3,39,400/- as against Rs.1,36,100/- awarded by the Tribunal. The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,03,300/-. In view of the same, the point regarding the quantum is answered accordingly. 18. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER i. The Appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and award dated 18.07.2016 passed in MVC No.473/2015 by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi, insofar as the liability is concerned, is set aside, and the claim petition against the owner and the insurance company is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,39,400/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12373 MFA No. 104441 of 2017 iii. The respondents i.e., the owner and the insurance company before the Tribunal are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. iv. The insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Draw the award accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB