- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9430 MFA No. 22547 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 22246 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22547 OF 2012 C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22246 OF 2013 IN MFA NO.22547/2012 BETWEEN: 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M/S. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., OPP. OLD KSRTC, BUS STAND, 1ST FLOOR, BALLARI, R/BY MANAGER LEGAL, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BELLAD BUILDING, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV) AND: 1. MALLAPPA S/O. LINGAPPA AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. IBRAHIMPUR, TQ: SHIRAGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI. 2. SHRINIVAS S/O. PAPANNA AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: LORRY DRIVER BEARING REG NO.MP-44/J-0579, R/O. HANUMANTANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: PAVAGAD, DIST: TUMKUR. 3. A.H. AHMEDKHAN S/O. RASULKHAN MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING REG NO.MP-44/J-0579, R/O. NO.8, 7TH CROSS, P.H. COLONY, TUMKUR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH G PATIL, ADV FOR R1 R3 SERVED, APPEAL STANDS ABATED AGAINST R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:13.01.2012 PASSED IN MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.01 10:53:14 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9430 MFA No. 22547 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 22246 of 2013 MVC.NO.641/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER III-MACT, BALLARI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,68,135/- WITH FUTURE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION, TILL ITS REALIZATION. IN MFA NO.22246/2013 BETWEEN: 1. MALLAPPA S/O LINGAPPA, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. EX-AGRICULTURIST, R/O: IBRAHIMPURA-VILLAGE, TQ. SIRUGUPPA, DIST. BALLARI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA G PATIL, ADV) AND: 1. A.H. AHAMED KHAN S/O RASOOL KHAN, MAJOR, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING, NO.MP-44/J-0579, R/O: NO.8, 7TH CROSS, P.H. COLONY, TUMKUR, TQ & DIST. BALLARI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., OPP. OLD KSRTC BUS STAND, 1ST FLOOR, BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.K KAYAKMATH, ADV FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.01.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.641/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-III, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9430 MFA No. 22547 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 22246 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) Miscellaneous First Appeal No.22547/2012 is filed by the insurance company, and Miscellaneous First Appeal No.22246/2013 is filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and award dated 13.01.2012 passed in MVC No.641/2009 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- III, Bellary (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). 1.1 For convenience the parties are refereed to, based on their ranking before the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts of the case leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows: Respondent No.1 before the Tribunal was the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.MP-44/J-0579 and respondent No.2 was the owner of the said vehicle. On 12.02.2008 at about 5 p.m, the petitioner met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle which hit the petitioner from the back side - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9430 MFA No. 22547 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 22246 of 2013 when he was proceeding on his motor cycle towards Siraguppa. The petitioner was admitted as an inpatient from 15.02.2008 to 13.03.2008 for 28 days, and spent a huge amount towards medical expenses. It is stated that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability and hence, on these grounds, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking the compensation. 3. Respondent No.2, despite service of notice, remained absent and unrepresented before the tribunal. Hence, he was placed exparte. 4. Respondent No.1, though of appeared through his counsel, he did not file a statement of objections. 5. Respondent No.3-insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and it is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident and the lorry had no permit to ply on the road of this state, and there is violation of the policy conditions. Hence, respondent No.3 is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9430 MFA No. 22547 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 22246 of 2013 not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioner in the claim petition. 6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 7. To substantiate the petitioners claim, his wife was examined as PW.1, examined the Doctor as PW.2, and marked 19 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-19. In rebuttal, the official of respondent No.3 was examined as RW.1, and marked one document as Ex.R-1. 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition in part with costs vide judgment dated 13.01.2012. It is ordered that the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,68,135/- with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization, and directed the insurance company i.e. Respondent No.3 to deposit the award amount with costs and interest within a month from the date of the judgment before the Tribunal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9430 MFA No. 22547 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 22246 of 2013 9. The insurance company i.e. Respondent No.3 aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award has filed MFA No.22547/2012 challenging the liability, and the petitioner, being dissatisfied with the Quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, has filed MFA No.22246/2013. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurance company, and the counsel for the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. He submits that there is violation of the policy conditions. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal, filed by the insurance company, and dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner to prove that, he - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9430 MFA No. 22547 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 22246 of 2013 suffered a permanent disability has examined the Doctor as PW.2, who opined that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 55% to the whole body. He submits that though the petitioner has not produced income proof, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income as per the chart issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. The accident is of 2008. The notional income for 2008 is Rs.4,250/- per month, whereby the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.3,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. He also submitted that the Tribunal has not added future prospects as per the proposition of law, laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others1. He also submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the other heads, is on the lower side. He also submitted that the petitioner has produced the photocopy of the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, he submitted that there is no violation of the policy conditions. He submitted that the Tribunal was not justified 1 (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9430 MFA No. 22547 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 22246 of 2013 in fastening the liability on the insurance company. Hence, on these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the appeal filed by the insurance company, and allow the appeal filed by the petitioner. 13. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the liability, and the quantum of compensation. 15. There is no dispute regarding the injuries suffered by the petitioner in the accident. The petitioner to prove, that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, produced the charge-sheet marked as Ex.P-3. From the perusal of Ex.P-3, it is clear that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 16. Insofar as liability is concerned: It is the case of the insurance company i.e. Respondent No.3 that, as of the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9430 MFA No. 22547 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 22246 of 2013 not possessing a valid and effective driving licence. The petitioner, to prove that the driver was possessing a valid and effective driving licence, produced the photocopy of driving license. From the perusal of the same, it discloses that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. Hence, the contention of the insurance company do not hold water. The Tribunal was justified in recording a finding that there is no violation of the policy conditions, and rightly saddled the liability on respondent No.3. 17. Insofar as the disability of the petitioner is concerned: The petitioner examined the Dr. Gaddi Someshwar F. as PW.2. He deposed that he working as Consultant Neurological Surgeon, and he has certified that the petitioner has sustained a road traffic accident (hit by lorry to bike from bike) on 12.02.2008 and initially he was take to Government Hospital, Siruguppa and he was taken to NIMHANS Bangalore and then was shifted to Danamma Hospital, Bellary, on 15.02.2008 and the ‘condition on admission of the petitioner: Pulse-not felt, BP-not - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9430 MFA No. 22547 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 22246 of 2013 recordable, RS/CVS/PA-normal.’ During the cross- examination of PW.2 it was elicited that PW.2 treated the petitioner. PW.2 being an expert in the medical field has opined that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability at 55%. The Tribunal was justified in assessing the disability to an extent of 55% to the whole body. I do not find any error in assessing the disability at 55% by the Tribunal, as the same is just and proper. 18. So far as the quantum is concerned: The petitioner has contended that he is an agriculturist, and he was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. To prove the income of the petitioner, the petitioner has not produced any income proof. In the absence of the income proof, the notional income has to be assessed as per the chart issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. The accident is of 2008 and the notional income of the petitioner will have to be taken at Rs.4,250/- per month. The petitioner is aged 35 years. In view of the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) 40% future - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9430 MFA No. 22547 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 22246 of 2013 prospects has to be added to the notional income i.e. 4,250/- +1700(40%)=5950/-. Taking into consideration the evidence of PW.2, and the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, and the same is re-assessed a follows: Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Re-assessed compensation by this Court (Rs.) 1 Pain and suffering 20,000/- 40,000/- 2 Medical expenses 1,01,335/- 1,01,335/- 3 Loss of happiness, frustration and rest period 5,000/- 25,000/- 4 Nourishment, attendant conveyance charges 10,000/- 25,000/- 5 Loss of earning during treatment period for 6 months (4250x6) - 25,500/- 6 Los of future earnings 3,16,800/- 6,28,320/- 7 Loss of amenities 25,000/- 8. For Future treatment 15,000/- 15,000/- TOTAL 4,68,135/- 8,85,155/- - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9430 MFA No. 22547 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 22246 of 2013 19. Thus, in all the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,85,155/- as against Rs.4,68,135/-. 20. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. Miscellaneous First Appeal No.22547/2012 is hereby dismissed. ii. Miscellaneous First Appeal No.22246/2013 is allowed. iii. The judgment and award dated 13.01.2012 passed in MVC No.641/2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal III, Bellary, is hereby modified. The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.4,17,020/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. iv. The insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9430 MFA No. 22547 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 22246 of 2013 Amount in deposit, and the TCR be transmitted to the Tribunal, concerned. Draw award accordingly. SD/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE KMV CT: BSB